User talk:Alvestrand/Archive5

New activity

Hi Alvestrand, having had a look at this and this, and after getting notified by someone, I thought you might be interested in this.

Cheers and happy New Year! DVdm (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems to have been used on multiple subjects, but last spree seems like the same-old-same-old. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing PRODs

Calling me a "deletionist" was absolutely uncalled for. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. I spoke in irritation after having spent time searching for sources on Sylvia Toh Paik Choo - they are abundant, but not proper. I do feel that the "action today" lobby on BLP is acting in haste, but that's not an excuse. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Trufresh

Hello! I understand many years ago that you deleted a promotional article written about "Trufresh" - Well, now what I did is I found a BusinessWeek article about the company. I worked from there, and created Trufresh WhisperToMe (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not promotional :-) - looks good to me! --Alvestrand (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Alvestrand's Day!

User:Alvestrand has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Alvestrand's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Alvestrand! Peace, Rlevse 00:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

-) - thanks! --Alvestrand (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Descendants Motorcycle Club

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Descendants Motorcycle Club, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Descendants Motorcycle Club. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dbratland (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

psst

Check out the talk of consequentialism.

I would like to help you if you will help me improving on the current situation as it is.

--Arjenvanslingerlandt (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

You redirected tool stone to [[stone tools#tool stone]]. Your edit summary doesn't give any indication that this redirection was the result of a discussion. If it was made following a discussion could you please tell me where to find it? I clicked on <nowiki> [[tool stone]] in the article chert. I was very surprised to find myself in the middle of an article on [[stone tool]]s.

I checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Tool_stone. I saw close to a dozen articles target [[tool stone]].

I also checked the revision history of tool stone, and saw it had been a full article -- one you redirected, without indicating the redirection was the result of a discussion.

Did you check the context where tool stone was used in other articles? In the first three I checked both stone tool and tool stone were used in the same sentence. Note that in ground stone article both stone tool and tool stone are separately linked in the very first sentence. Sorry, but I think you will find that it is very annoying to readers to click on one link, and be taken to a different article. Imagine someone reading one of these articles, like ground stone, or knapping, wanting to know more information, first clicking on stone tool, reading it, then clicking the back button, and then clicking on tool stone. What is their reaction? "Why didn't I just read this in the other article?" Geo Swan (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and happy to respond!

This redirection was done 14 months ago (June 2009) - it's a bit hard to reconstruct my thought processes at the time. The request to merge the two was placed by User:Dbachmann back in December 2007 - see this edit - and had not had a single comment for 2 years. I was probably surfing the list of proposed mergers and doing the ones I considered completely uncontroversial like this one. I think it still looks better in context, and links to sections are common on Wikipedia - feel free to edit the articles that point to this one so that they don't link twice to the same article. Or, if you feel strongly that it looks better the other way, revert my edit and make "tool stone" a full-fledged article again - hopefully, if you do so, you can also check and expand the references section of that article. That's what Wikipedia is all about! --Alvestrand (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinks to subsection heading are common -- in the wikipedia namespace. Thank goodness they are uncommon in article name space. I think the practice should be discontinued, for the reasons I offered in Talk:Stone tool. IMO when and if the the wikipedia uses software where wikilinks work properly when they point to subsection headings then we can start using those kinds of wikilinks in article space.

After looking at the remaining links to tool stone I am convinced it is a separate topic from stone tool. The authors of the dozen articles who wikilinks to both terms, in the same sentence, clearly thought the two terms referred to separate topics. So, without regard to Dbachmann's unexplained suggestion not netting any replies, I think the twelve articles whose authors obviously thought the two terms were distinct was all that was necessary to show that this was not an uncontroversial merge.

When someone places merge tags on articles, don't they have obligation to leave a note on the talk page, laying out why they think the merge is a good idea? I see other contributors routinely removing merge tags where the merge proposer wasn't serious enough to get around to leaving an explanation within a reasonable period of time.

I feel strongly that the merge was not a good idea. And I plan to initiate the formal steps to have it reversed. Geo Swan (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me .... "formal steps"? As I said above - go ahead and revert the article to the version that existed just before the merge, edit the article to remove the merge proposal tag, clean it up as you feel appropriate, edit the "stone tool" article to not duplicate "tool stone", and you're good to go. My opinion (not strong) was that it was good to merge it. Your opinion (strong) is that it should not be merged. Do it, don't quarrel about it! --Alvestrand (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK.

I hope I have given you food for thought on using wikilinks to subsections heading in article space. Geo Swan (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a discussion to be had near Wikipedia:Links#Piped_links_to_sections_of_articles. But some thought it is. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Mystery Meat

The article The Mystery Meat has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references ("The Mystery Meat" Profiles Dick Leighninger) found no published (gBooks) sources for the band, Appears to fail WP:N and WP:V, the closest thing to a claim of notability is the unreferenced claim for an original vinyl with a value of $6,000

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You may want to comment...

• Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites#Find a Grave blacklisted?

There's some misinformed people thinking you're all agents of Find-A-Grave intent on spamming Wikipedia.. <shaking head> -- œ^™ 13:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! --Alvestrand (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Really long comment today that I think is mostly a response to you. (I don't know if you're watching the page.)

On a related note, but not one I think necessary for general discussion, does it make sense to you how a firm recommendation to link back to Find A Grave on every single article gets interpreted as promotion of their website?

I want to thank you for your calm, open, and intelligent replies. Frustration levels seem to be running high with this very long conversation, so I particularly appreciate the "calm" aspect right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites; it involves an essay that you contributed to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! My opinion added. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

.xxx

Hi Harald. You'll be happy to know that I have made that correction you requested, and some further clean up on .xxx. Any further comments? Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - this seems good to me! (I'm no longer on the ICANN Board, so I wasn't part of last week's vote, and have no special insight.) --Alvestrand (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Alvestrand,

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) 04:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll have to decline for the moment - two reasons:

1. I've been quite passive in the admin community for the last couple of years, due to other things having priority. Thus, I'm not a current fair sample.
2. I'm on holiday next week, and will be busy right after that.

There are many other admins. I hope you find willing subjects among them - sounds like a cool project! --Alvestrand (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Metropolitan Washington Ear

The article Metropolitan Washington Ear has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Mean as custard (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

AfDs

If you're gonna go around submitting articles for deletion, you should be here to see what others have to say about it. See my talk page. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Testathon listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Testathon. Since you had some involvement with the Testathon redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Santa Clara Vanguard Cadets

I may not have made the move to your satisfaction, but the article was redirected because the name of the organization was wrong. The correct name is the Santa Clara Vanguard Cadets Drum and Bugle Corps. Please do whatever is necessary to restore it before I complete the total rewrite of the article that is in my sandbox and try to replace the current one with the new one. Thanx muchly... I realize you were only trying to help. GWFrog (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

NP, the important thing is that if you use the "move" function, the history of the article is kept, so everyone can see what everyone else contributed; if you cut and paste the text into a new page, it looks as if you're trying to take credit for everything that's written on the page. Keeping track of who contributed what is important for Wikipedia. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't seem to be able to find how to "move"... Would you please move this article back to its proper title of "Santa Clara Vanguard Cadets Drum and Bugle Corps"? GWFrog (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

After some finger trouble, it's now at Santa Clara Vanguard Cadets Drum and Bugle Corps. I'm assuming you'll fix the links that should point to it. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the "move" function (if you have access to it) is under the little pulldown menu next to the "watch this page" star (to the left of the searchbox). --Alvestrand (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanx muchly for the move & the info. GWFrog (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Cesar Chavez Student Center

Hello Alvestrand! I recently noticed that you deleted a large portion of the Cesar Chavez Student Center page. Although, I am still new at wikipedia, I don't quite understand why you deleted the building murals section of our page. It is not promotional in any way seeing as the murals represent a vast historical impact that the surrounding communities have had on our building. Therefore I was wondering if you could clarify as to what exactly i did wrong here to merit the deletion of the entire section. Hope to hear from you soon! comment added by Briantrejo (talk (UTC)

Have you read your own talk page? The content was copied, verbatim, and from a source that did not have an appropriate copyright allowing copying. If Wikipedia allows stuff like that to happen, and doesn't revert it when detected, it puts the entire Wikipedia project at legal risk - we can't afford that.

The explicit instructions on what you need to do and how you need to do it are on your talk page - at [1]. Short version: Either prove to Wikipedia that it's OK to copy the text, or write it using your own, new, words. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I have to email wikipedia then since I am the Cesar Chavez Student Center's webmaster. Thanks for your help! Briantrejo (talk (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.179.6 (talk)

Find-A-Grave Links

I made about 50 changes. Certainly some of these can be handled by redirects to achieve the result, but I am not sure whether they all can be done that way. In some cases the old name is a common name, perhaps without the middle name. That common name already may exist as the subject of a disambiguation page or as the subject of an article on a different individual. So a redirect would not seem to work in such cases because of possible conflicts. Would the same result be achieved with a disambiguation page or is that not specific enough to link up with the find-a-grave pages? If I am right that a redirect would not always work correctly, and perhaps I am not, is there any other way to accomplish the result? Please let me know whether it is necessary to handle some of these items other than by redirects and, if so, how that might be done. I stumbled on the page by chance and only checked certain names I thought would have articles; perhaps a few dozen more checked than the ones I found had pages. Is the project not being kept up unless a new article happens to hit the same name or perhaps is it only being checked now at greater intervals? Donner60 (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The project was started in 2005, and all the people that were easy to find have already been deleted, but there's not been much activity in the last couple of years. I make a trip through the project once in a while and do something to the blue links - either delete them (when they're a correct match) or disambiguate them. So just about all the links on the pages are supposed to be red. I've built dozens of disambiguation pages and hundreds of redirects as a result of this work; sometimes that's the right thing, sometimes not.

I think of these project pages as a tool to make Wikipedia better - but I don't think of it as an important project. I just like doing it. So years may pass between every time a page gets visited - there's still more than 7000 entries on the lists (not counting the "possibly not notable"), the goal is to remove them all, but it's still a long way off. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that it was a good idea to make the lists of missing pages based on various encyclopedic or similar sources. It is a good way to show people what still needs to be done to move toward a complete encyclopedic work. It also shows that contrary to what some may think, the work is quite far from being completed. Now, I hope I can get all the pages done correctly. That will be considerably later today since I am about to log off, and on Sunday if I do not finish today. I will get back to you if I have questions on how to complete all of these. Donner60 (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have created redirects for all of the find-a-grave titles to the actual article titles for all the names that I had changed, except the two names under the letter J for which you added redirects and deleted the names. I deleted all of the names for which I created redirects from the find-a-grave lists. I also deleted John C. Vaughn for whom an article had been created using the same name as the one on the list. I had no problem or conflict with creation of the redirects. I hope that puts the changes I made in line with the procedure previously used. Sorry about any confusion this may have caused. At least I can say that 50 names now have redirects and have been removed from the find-a-grave lists, which is in line with the project goal. Donner60 (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Alvestrand (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Alvestrand/POV-history

User:Alvestrand/POV-history, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alvestrand/POV-history and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Alvestrand/POV-history during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been suggested that I should just ask you if would care to just delete it yourself. That would certainly be fine with me, and we could just close the mfd. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

NP - it's deleted. Still wonder how you stumbled upon it! --Alvestrand (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of T-Trac

The article T-Trac has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to meet general notability guideline

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Brianhe (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aquapod (kayak)

The article Aquapod (kayak) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not pass WP:GNG. Non notable boat. Stub is just an advert.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

ISODE

Hi Harald, I've significantly updated the ISO Development Environment page. As someone involved in the project at the time, I'd really appreciate you taking a look to valdiate if my memory serves me correctly. Camayoc (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. It would be interesting to have more info on deployment - both PP and QUIPU were quite widely deployed in various academic networks (which consisted a sizable fraction of the Internet at the time). --Alvestrand (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Technology Interface Journal

Hello, thanks for tagging this article for notability back in 2008. I looked it over but wasn't sure. As it's been in place so long, you might want to consider taking it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I tagged it as part of a drive to tag orphan articles back then.... it seems to have ceased publication around 2010. I can't bring myself to care enough about it one way or the other; the ugly header is there for people to decide whether or not to take it seriously. Thanks for looking at it! --Alvestrand (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nowikify

Template:Nowikify has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GoingBatty (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

* Southern limit of the distribution of the green anaconda

Good evening:

Please allow me to share an article with you. Maybe you will find it interesting:

http://www.naturapop.com/home/southern-limit-of-the-distribution-of-the-green-anaconda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.2.207.74 (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

New updated data on Geographic Range of the Green Anaconda ("Eunected murinus", this time in English (the previous reference is outdated and in Spanish)

New updated data on Geographic Range of the Green Anaconda ("Eunected murinus", this time in English (the previous reference is outdated and in Spanish):

http://www.naturapop.com/home/southern-limit-of-the-distribution-of-the-green-anaconda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.2.207.74 (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Russ Housley

Hi, the Russ Housley stub would be nicer with a picture, and the picture on the IESG bio page would be good enough. But there's no CC-BY or similar license on the page; are you still entitled to kick one of the culprits? I checked LinkedIn, but they want a premium subscription for inquiries more than one hop away. Regards, F.Ellermann 82.113.106.157 (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:KvalbeinLeft.jpg

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

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:KvalbeinLeft.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:KvalbeinLeft.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia: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 the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Permission link updated - we'll see if that satisfies the copyright checkers. --Alvestrand (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

EddieSegoura Ban Appeal

Hello. I am notifying you that the above is currently being considered at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community de facto ban appeal by User:EddieSegoura, and your input (positive, negative, or otherwise) is invited there. You have received this notification and invitation as you participated in the previous ban appeal in 2009 and may be familiar with or remember some of the earlier context, you may be aware of other matters which are relevant to the appeal, or you may wish to express whether or not your view has changed since the last discussion. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Template:WikiTree name deletion discussion?

Harald, I noticed that you've been active with Template:Find a Grave, and thought you might have something to add to the discussion on deleting a similar template Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_18#Template:Wikitree_name. I'd value your opinion - especially since WikiTree and Geni have such similar missions. Many thanks! Kjtobo (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, commented! Alvestrand (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Alvestrand. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Alvestrand.

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) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Alvestrand. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 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

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Alvestrand. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sarah Hopkins (writer)

The article Sarah Hopkins (writer) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Rusty Springs (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_20ueMz6vebxE9p3&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Alvestrand. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Alvestrand. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

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

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

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

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Capitalization of Internet

The article Capitalization of Internet has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOPAGE. We don't need an entire page covering this.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Popcornfud (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Capitalization of Internet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Capitalization of Internet 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitalization of Internet 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. Popcornfud (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)