User talk:UkPaolo/Archive 7

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Head for Points, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic. 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, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
60		Zoombinis (talk)						Add sources
29		Switch (UK TV series) (talk)						Add sources
62		Mister Terrific (Terry Sloane) (talk)						Add sources
3		E O Higgins (talk)						Add sources
70		Minor government agents in 24 (talk)						Add sources
70		South Western Main Line (talk)						Add sources
290		Star India (talk)						Cleanup
87		Annamalai University (talk)						Cleanup
90		Broadstairs (talk)						Cleanup
30		T-37A tank (talk)						Expand
718		Imperator Furiosa (talk)						Expand
124		Alf Ramsey (talk)						Expand
11		Meon Valley Railway (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
236		Apache Ant (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
86		National Book Store (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
13		Civic City (talk)						Merge
7		Lydiard Park (talk)						Merge
1,679		Social networking service (talk)						Merge
351		Burlesque (2010 American film) (talk)						Wikify
3		New Copse (talk)						Wikify
1,271		Kelly Brook (talk)						Wikify
0		SuperNoova (talk)						Orphan
1		City of Racine Fire Department (talk)						Orphan
3		Yuma Lettuce Days (talk)						Orphan
98		Emma Blackery (talk)						Stub
3		Ashley, East Hampshire (talk)						Stub
8		Teletrac (talk)						Stub
2		Treloar's Hospital Platform railway station (talk)						Stub
67		Susan Sheridan (talk)						Stub
7		Wolverine and Deadpool (talk)						Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Keith Sequeira

Hi UkPaolo. I am the editor who tagged a section of Keith Sequeira as a copyvio. For the record, I did consider rephrasing things myself, but I have some serious questions about reliability of the veethi.com source being cited so I tagged it instead. Anyway, I saw your warning about editing the text while it is under investigation, but it does not seem to be being heeded. Not sure if it's proper for me to revert, so I'll leave that up to you. These are new editors, however, so maybe they are unaware of how to create a temporary subpage where they can make changes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Christian Bassogog

On 26 October, will you renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave it unprotected for now, and keep an eye on it. Happy to renew PC if there's a continued need. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 01:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paddle steamer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Monitor. 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) 10:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Tamam

Previously deleted article Tamam keeps reappearing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Tamam&year=2015&month=-1&tagfilter= MarkYabloko 10:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted, and left the editor a warning. Will block if re-posting re-occurs. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Same problem with for Realtravelmaster.com https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Realtravelmaster.com&year=2015&month=-1&tagfilter= MarkYabloko 10:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - user blocked. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleted my article - my own copyright

Dear UkPaolo,

you have deleted my article because of copyright.

The original source website is mine and I listed it at the section the references.

Please, what can I do to be my article visible?

Thank you.

Regard,

Michaela Sykorova — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelaSyko (talk • contribs) 14:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michaela, to directly address your question regarding copyrights, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online -- in short you would need the text concerned to be explicitly made available under an appropriate license. That said, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and material published must be written from a neutral point of view, in an encyclopedic fashion with appropriate references, and the subject of articles must meet relevant notability guidelines. Aside from just the copyright concerns, the deleted article did not follow any of these guidelines. Also, if this is your company please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 14:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've just re-read the deleted article. I'd strongly encourage you to read the company notability guidelines at WP:ORG. With your company only having been started in September 2015, and seemingly no coverage from 3rd party sources, I don't see any way you can justify notability for inclusion in Wikipedia at the moment I'm afraid. Of course, if you disagree, then re-write the article making a credible claim of notability very specific. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 14:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Transurfing of Reality and Vadim Zeland

Hello _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐,

I need some help here..

I have nominated two articles for deletion Transurfing of Reality and Vadim Zeland. I am really surprised they lasted in Wikipedia that long, since they are both a mere promotion of the same scam artist. But that is NOT the point! The point is, I was trying to generate discussions and get consensuses before removing them. That didn't happen. My tags were removed, repeatedly, with no explanations, or even allowing for a talk page discussions to start. This is obviously preventing me from submitting the articles for deletion (AfD), since no discussions are attached to them.

Here is the texts that I have enclosed with the deletion tags in both articles:

Article was tagged for deletion, yet tag was removed and no discussions in talk page have ensued. "Transurfing" might have some followers, but Wikipedia is NOT a popularity contest. Article itself is nothing but WP:G3 filled with free promotion WP:G11, and no encyclopedic value whatsoever.

"subst:proposed deletion|reason=Article was tagged for speedy deletion, yet tag was removed and no discussions in talk page have ensued. "Transurfing" might have some followers, but Wikipedia is NOT a popularity contest. Article itself is nothing but WP:G3 filled with free promotion WP:G11, and no encyclopedic value whatsoever."

Here are the links: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transurfing_of_Reality&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vadim_Zeland&action=history

How to go about that? Sincerely, MarkYabloko 16:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @MarkYabloko: let me see if I can help clarify some of the policy around this, and advise how best to proceed. This is largely going to echo the advice of DESiegel below (which I assume was directed at you!) As DES says, the criteria for speedy deletion are intentionally pretty restrictive. So, whilst I get the motivation behind this edit that you made, I'd have to agree with Thparkth's assertion that Transurfing of Reality can't qualify for speedy deletion under criteria WP:A10 — whatever your opinion of the contents of the article unfortunately you can't argue that it "does not expand upon, detail or improve information" the existing article. Your next step to {{PROD}} the article seems perfectly reasonable to me, but you have to accept that the policy for WP:PROD does allow anyone (including the article's original creator) to remove your proposed deletion if they object to it for any reason. Whilst it's good practice to make clear one's rationale for removing a {{PROD}} tag there's no enforceable requirement for this. In short, the PROD process is intended for uncontroversial deletions, and kinda by definition, if another editor objects, then the deletion can't be uncontroversial. In this scenario, I'm afraid you can't just re-PROD.

My suggestion as to how best to proceed is, as you say above in your message to me, is to generate some discussion about whether the article(s) should be deleted. With {{PROD}} having been disputed, the next step would be to follow the Articles for deletion (AfD) process. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Note that the AfD process doesn't just cover the list of speedy deletion criteria: you might find it helpful to take a read through WP:DEL-REASON. If you do wish to start the AfD process, there's guidelines under the "How to nominate a single page for deletion" section of WP:AFDHOW. No editor should remove your AfD listing until the discussion has concluded and a consensus reached. As DES says below, however, before listing an article you should make an effort to confirm e.g. notablity prior to listing for deletion for this reason. If you're unsure, you might like to firstly start a discussion on the article's talk page, making clear your concerns, but this is not a requirement. You seem maybe a little confused when you say that anyone's actions are preventing you from submitting the articles for deletion (AfD), since no discussions are attached to them: to be clear there's three (related) processes -- speedy deletion, PRODding and AfD. There's nothing stopping you from listing an article at AfD; another editors removal of a PROD tag does not prevent you from doing so.

Regarding my personal opinion of the two articles concerned, from a quick read through and search of the web I'm not convinced that Transurfing of Reality meets WP:GNG and reads a bit like WP:OR to me. Notablity of Vadim Zeland is trickier to determine: whilst the article does little to make notability clear (and certainly to do so backed by reliable references) some of the talk page discussion does imply that he has at least sold a lot of books.

I hope this helps, please let me know if I can advise further. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐, this was great and comprehensive response.

I am going to follow your advise and see if a discussion can be started. I also agree with your note, that he sold a lot of books. I think he should be mentioned in wikipedia, but not for him to use wikipedia as a platform for massive free promotion of something very questionable, mildly put.

Thanks again! MarkYabloko 19:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, UkPaolo. It seems that you placed a speedy deletion tag on Transurfing of Reality, and used {{PROD}} to tag Vadim Zeland. You need to understand the limitations of both of these methods. The speedy deletion criteria are intentionally very narrow. only pages clearly fitting one or more of the written criteria are speedy deleted. If a reviewing admin or experienced editor determines that no CSD applies, the tag will be removed without significant discussion. On the other hand, PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. If any editor, including the creator of the article, objects, the PROD is declined, and may not be reapplied. No discussion is required. If what you relaly want is talk page discussion about the appropriateness of either of these articles, you can simply start one on the relevant talk page. No deletion tag is required. You say above that "This is obviously preventing me from submitting the articles for deletion (AfD), since no discussions are attached to them." You are mistaken in that statement. There is no requirement for previous talk page discussion when submitting an article to AfD, although it is often a good idea. And insofar as there is any need, you can simply start such a discussion yourself. There is, however, as per WP:BEFORE, a requirement to make a good-faith effort to fix articles before nominating them. In particular, if nominated for lack of notability, a reasonable good-faith search for sources that might establish notability should be made. DES ^(talk) 17:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @DESiegel:, just to be clear I've never made edits to either article, I assume your comments are directed at MarkYabloko above? _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. my error. I did intend those comments for MarkYabloko, who was concerned with the existence of those two articles. I have placed a tag questioning notability, and a {{no footnotes}} tag on Transurfing of Reality. DES ^(talk) 20:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Books Books Books

Hello again _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐, Since you have been so kind with your responses, I thought why not bother you with one more question! :) What's wikipedia's take on creating separate articles for each book in the world? Exaggerating of course, but take a look at Raghuram Ajith Dissanayake contributions: [1]. P.S.: This is NOT a complain. Just looking for an insight from you. Thanks again. MarkYabloko 10:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @MarkYabloko: the key here, yet again, is notability. Wikipedia's aim, in my opinion, would be to have articles for each notable book in the world. I think you'd find WP:NBOOK worth a read in considering this matter. The summary at the top, in particular, gives a good overview of how we might define notability in the context of books. You should note, however, that failure to satisfy the criteria outlined in that guideline is not a criterion for speedy deletion so WP:AFD would be the way to go for articles which you don't believe meet this spec. I'm afraid I don't really have much time just now to examine in depth all the articles you reference, but certainly from a quick look Peace at Any Price for example would appear to satisfy the first of the book notability criteria no problem – per the references section it's been the subject of a number of non-trivial works (things like this article from the Economist and this review from the International Journal would suffice as far as I'm concerned). I can't see a clear cause for concern here, though admittedly I've only had a brief scan through the articles concerned. Keep up the good work helping out round here – I noticed you doing a lot of really useful maintenance in particular with new page patrolling yesterday. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you again, and again, _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐.

Great answer and delicious info! I will try not to bother you with more questions for a while! Best! MarkYabloko 06:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This user got the Great Answer Badge.
Earn one at: Teahouse Badges

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) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for editing TravelTriangle

Hi UkPaolo,

First of all, I honestly thank you for editing my page and pointing out multiple citation errors to me. I found out that some of the content entered by some other user was more of advertisement, and also I failed to observe my own words which kind of looked like biased towards the company. My first version of the article was perfectly neutral, but I am grateful to you that you toned down all errors made. Please continue to watch the page as many new users would continue to make irrelevant biased edits. I want it to be neutral. Can you please put a code restricting anyone like a new user to make wrong edits?

Also, since you have corrected all errors and deleted all content that appeared as an advertisement, Is it possible for you delete

tag? I don't want my article to be unnecessarily showcased as an advertisement when it is not in its current form.

Thanks.

Cheers UkPaolo :)

TravelTriangle 17:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for the edit :) Keep up the good work ! TravelTriangle 17:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, UkPaolo. You have new messages at Pichpich's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deletion of Page

I am sure you have not read the copyright disclaimer which states that it can be quoted when due credit is given for non commercial reasons. That was the reason credit was given with proper copyright notice & links to its website for 4 quotes that were used from the website. These links were provided so that the content can be verified. Read the Terms of Use again and let me know if references and public links are violation of guidelines and if yes, please quote the guideline.

Terms of Use The SNIA hereby grants permission for individuals to use this glossary for personal use only, and for corporations and other business entities to use this glossary for internal use only (including internal copying, distribution, and display), provided that: Any definition reproduced must be reproduced in its entirety with no alteration, and, any document, printed or electronic, in which material from this glossary (or any portion hereof) is reproduced must acknowledge the SNIA copyright on that material, and must credit the SNIA for granting permission for its reuse. Other than as explicitly provided above, you may not make any commercial use of this glossary, sell any or all of this glossary, or distribute this glossary to third parties. All rights not explicitly granted above are expressly reserved to SNIA. In particular, the provisions above do not grant the rights to make any commercial use of this glossary, sell any or all of this dictionary, or distribute this dictionary to third parties.

Swapsjc (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Swapsjc — I did read the disclaimer, and unfortunately those terms of use are not acceptable for Wikipedia. All text submitted here must be able to be freely redistributed, reused and built upon by anyone. That includes the right for the text to be modified and to be used for commercial reasons. You might find WP:COPYPASTE or Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright helpful, and the full policy is at Wikipedia:Copyrights. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 14:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately a similar page is "Automated tiered storage" on Wikipedia which is actually a subtle promotion from Dell & Apple. Since this term is used in Storage Industry, i created another page which is neutral and has reference to only Storage Industry Standard Definition from Storage Industry Standard Organization called SNIA.org. One can not explain the term "Automated Storage Tiering" without referring to SNIA.org as all Storage vendors are part of that snia.org. Anyways, I was trying to help the community by providing correct information. Now it seems that people will have to live with incorrect and half cooked information on "Automated tiered storage" page. Also merging that page with HSM page is a very bad idea. For sure anyone who made that recommendation don't understand that both are two very different things. Swapsjc (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Swapsjc: I'm not really sure what more I can say here. If you've got concerns about Automated tiered storage I suggest raising them on that article's talk page. If you think that article is not written from a neutral point of view then by all means go ahead and edit it. That can't, however, be a justification to add copyrighted text from elsewhere. I'm not suggesting you can't make reference to SNIA, but you can't copy their material wholesale. Again, I suggest you take a read through WP:COPYPASTE. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ranikhet, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Masi and Jalali. 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) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Flower Delivery Express

Can you assist me on creating a Flower Delivery Express Wikipedia page that follows Wiki's guidlines? I don't understand why it has been deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowerpower28 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, because I suspect that this company simply isn't sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. You may like to read our general notability guidelines as well as the company specific ones. If you think the company does meet these guidelines, then any content for such an article would need to demonstrate this, being backed up by reliable 3rd party sources. It would also need to be written from a neutral point of view, and not overly promotional (unlike your previous article). It would also need to meet our copyright policy (so not just be copied from the company website, again as per the previous article). Finally, since I suspect you're linked to the company, please take a read through WP:COI. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Baisla

added links pointing to Kotla and Ghaziabad

Raccoonpox virus

added links pointing to Plague and Serum

Shanga, Pate Island

added a link pointing to Swahili

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Eckwersheim derailment

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 21:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Logelloop

Hello, I am one of the Logelloop developers and the writer of the article on Logelloop. The base of my article is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steinberg_Cubase I mean, I just want to make an article in the same style as as articles about other softwares on Wikipedia.

You'll also find some other articles on audio software as Ableton Live : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableton_Live and I think Logelloop, as a real time looping software, may have an article in Wikipedia.

This article is useful to make link for some pages related to audio looping (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_(music), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_looping)

If you think that this article is not useful on Wikipedia, please delete it. Thank you very much, best regards, Philippe Ollivier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe Ollivier (talk • contribs)

Hi Philippe Ollivier, thanks for your message. I've copied it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logelloop which is where discussion of the potential deletion of this article is taking place. If you've more to add I'd encourage you to post directly to that page. If you're unfamiliar with the Articles for Deletion process, you might find WP:DISCUSSAFD worth a read. For your information, deletion discussions run for a minimum of 7 days, until a community consensus has been determined.

Whilst I appreciate the points you make, you need to keep in mind that Wikipedia has criteria for what subjects are sufficiently notable to merit inclusion: see WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE for some relevant guidelines. It was my opinion on reading the article that Logelloop does not meet these criteria. This will now be the subject of a discussion, in which other editors are invited to comment. I'd encourage you to read through our notability guidelines, and if you believe your software is sufficiently noteworthy to comment on the AfD discussion to this effect (and of course to ensure this is adequately reflected in the article). Your further input on this matter is most welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logelloop. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Croy, North Lanarkshire

Copied & pasted pics from MY OWN flikr profile/facebook group onto site but taken down by another admin. Trying to upload the original photos from hard drive but error message informing me im blocked from image upload. Any suggestions. Just trying to put this article to bed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibrowser24 (talk • contribs)

Hi @Wikibrowser24:, thanks for your message. I'm afraid it's somewhat hard to believe, however, that all of the photos concerned are your own work. There have been photos from at least two different Flickr accounts, both of which showing as copyrighted works, and one of which complete with watermark [2] [3]. You uploaded what was clearly the front cover of a book and claimed it as your own work. You uploaded multiple images sourced from multiple different sites on the web [4] [5] [6] [7] to list a few sources. I'm sorry, but I don't believe these were all taken by you. That's before we get on to images claiming to be of Croy which clearly are not. Please understand the importance of adhering to copyright rules; that you can't pass others work off as your own; and that you can't simply upload any image you find on the web. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I have multiple accounts online and images from different sources e.g. kerrydale street are fan blogs. I own the book in question and took a picture of the cover to upload onto the site, didn't realize this is still copyright. All I want to do is upload 4 original images to complete the article then it's done for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibrowser24 (talk • contribs)

@Wikibrowser24: I'm afraid simply taking a photo of another's work does not give you ownership or change the copyright status. You either need to take (i.e. photograph yourself) some original images (I don't mean photograph other people's images), or source images that others have published under an acceptable license. If the Flickr accounts truly are your own, and you wish to license the photos under a "free" license I suggest changing the licensing terms on Flickr, then there is no ambiguity. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

hyperlink

how do you get to Engineering information, Air valves, pp. 455–456. from http://www.relevantsolutions.com/products-and-services/instrumentation-and-automation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlwar (talk • contribs)

@Rlwar: I assume you're referring to edits made to Air-operated valve. In which case, your edit was only to remove the "references" section, and not the reference itself, which was still shown at the bottom of the page. I reverted this to restore our standard article formatting. It seems the link referred to in this reference has indeed been removed. The best thing to do in this circumstance is normally to mark the link as dead, and ideally to locate an archived copy. I've just done this now you've brought the matter to my attention. Thanks. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

excellent job tamil 16:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Request

Kindly help to restore the article "Armada Holding" so that I can improve the article by adding citations, reliable sources and categorize it properly.

looking forward to your kind support and guidance.

Thanks.

---

Presley

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PresleySimpson (talk • contribs)

Hi @PresleySimpson:, as requested I've restored your article, but to your user space as User:PresleySimpson/Armada Holding so that you can improve the article by adding citations to reliable sources. Before this is moved back to the main space, please be sure to read our notability guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:CORP and make clear in the article this company's notability, per these guidelines, and backed by reliable sources. In short, you should show that the company has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" — the article as it stands fails to do so. Finally, if you have a connection to the company, I would like to draw your attention to WP:COI. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Walajabad taluk

Is Walajabad taluk a separate entity from Walajabad? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hi @Northamerica1000: good work sourcing some references for that article :o). I should say that my knowledge of Indian geography is poor, but it's my understanding that they are indeed separate entities. That seems to be backed up by the 2011 census data (125,868 for the taluk, 10,853 for the town), and implied by this ref. Looking at the rest of Category:Taluks of Kanchipuram district separating the articles for the taluk and it's main town seems consistent with what's been done elsewhere (see Maduranthakam and Madurantakam taluk, for example). Template:Kanchipuram district also lists Walajabad block but I have no idea as to what that refers... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 12:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Yeah, they seem separate, but I'm not entirely sure. Thanks for the cat link, which I hadn't checked out, and for the article examples. Also thanks for your work to expand the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: no probs. As I say, my understanding's not great, I'm only going on what I've read on here really. Might be worth posing the question of the article's creator, or posting over at Wikipedia:WikiProject India perhaps? _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I may not get more involved with this one at this time. As a side note, if you only go on what you read on Wikipedia, you're on the right track...North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.

Michael Scott

:o) _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Youssry Saleh & Partners

I do believe that WIkI asks for newspaper or journal or magazine to be added as a source and i didnt know how to submit this after the page was delete and if you help me to submit the new sources it will be very kind from you. and that the reason i recreated the page as i didnt know how to resubmit new sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed metawea (talk • contribs)

@Mohamed metawea: as I posted on your talk page, please follow Wikipedia:Deletion review instead of recreating the page. Note, however, that I agree with consensus from the original deletion discussion that this company fails to meet the notability guidelines set out at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) — I encourage you to read these and be prepared to explain how the company has been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Also, if you're connected to the company please be aware of WP:COI: in short "do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships". Thanks. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

BMK

Please explain why BMK was blocked. The IP he was reverting is a blocked long-term abuser, under active discussion. Acroterion (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing; the IPs BMK reverted have all been blocked for block evasion/disruption... Thomas.W ^talk 14:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Acroterion: @Thomas.W: seems I was perhaps too hasty. I acted based on edits to the article on Mark Benton (from my watchlist) taken entirely in isolation, where BMK's actions seemed unwarranted and in violation of WP:3RR. I failed to notice ongoing wider discussions, however, so my apologies to Beyond My Ken if there's more to this case. I've removed the block. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 14:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, mistakes get made. Thanks for the unblock. BMK (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done things like that too. Acroterion (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: (and @Acroterion:) Thanks for your understanding _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

page edit

please help me to re-edit the page sorry for disturbance i am really sorry Mohamed metawea (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mohamed metawea: Hi Mohamed, assuming you're referring to Youssry Saleh & Partners you should note that this was deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youssry Saleh & Partners. You shouldn't therefore be trying to edit the page, or re-create the article. If you believe the original deletion discussion was unjustified, please follow Wikipedia:Deletion review instead of recreating the page (but note that I agree with editors in that discussion that this company fails to meet the notability guidelines set out at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

please review

i added the sources in the reasons why Youssry Saleh & partners need a review for delete please check it Mohamed metawea (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

For context, the aforementioned source links are in a request he filed at WP:REFUND. --Finngall ^talk 18:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Finngall: thanks for adding context!

@Mohamed metawea: I appreciate your concern, but you should note that because the article was deleted following our formal process, you'll need to raise your request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. You'll find instructions on that page as to how to create an entry. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

i added the page in the deletion review

dear thank you so much i added the page in the deletion review please recheck it thereMohamed metawea (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mohamed metawea: there's two different processes: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and Wikipedia:Deletion review. You've posted at the first, but as the banner at the top of that page states "this page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions". That's why your request has been declined. You instead need to post at the second: please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 06:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	you're an administrator i requested page protection but unknowingly requested for deletion .i am new to wiki.sorry wiki tamil 100 11:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian W. Cordes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hurricane Isaac. 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) 10:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Page "Grow Center İnkişaf Mərkəzi"

Dear UkPaolo,

I want to create a page called "Grow Center İnkişaf Mərkəzi". Content can be the same with the content of the previous deleted page. This page will inform people about the company which support the development of knowledge and skills of young people. The company combines many services for the development of youth. So if possible, please don't remove this page. Thanks.
Nahid Ibrahimov (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nahid Ibrahimov: hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You should be aware that Wikipedia is not about telling the world about your organisation: before considering re-creating this article please familiarise yourself with our notability guidelines. It also sounds like you may have a conflict of interest and should be aware that it is not appropriate to edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships. Finally, please note that this is the English-language Wikipedia and all articles should be written in English (the previously deleted article was not). There are other Wikipedia's available in other languages if this is your preference. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Article Protection

I want to protect my article named oasis academy school. Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarojupreti132 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Kayce Smith

UkPaolo, Rons76 here,

I have attempted to leave references but not sure if they are in place. The documentation and the verified information can be found in a few different sources.

Kayce has been verified by Twitter with celebrity status.@KayceSmithESPN

There is also an ESPN wiki page "ESPN College Football Broadcast Teams" that list her assignments with her production crew.

Her background is found on a few different articles and this is a summation with more accuracy. I listed the most credible sources in the "Talk" section yet there are other 3rd party articles that substantiate her history. All information is accurate and true. Please let me know how to fix this. Thank you,

UkPaola, I forgot this... Rons76 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rons76: thanks for your message. I'm pleased you seem keen to add in some references. The normal expectation would be for inline citations to support some of the statements made within the article. So, for example, following the sentence "She is a graduate of Texas A&M University with a degree in Communications" you might provide a reliable source as to how you know that information to be true. The easiest way to do this is to add a foot note using ref tags immediately after the sentence concerned; a simple example might be <ref>http://example.com/page</ref> to just reference a URL. Of course, it's good practice to include more than just a URL, and for this there's a range of templates; a better example might be <ref>{{cite web|url=http://example.com/page|title=Name of Article|date=1 February 2016|website=example.com}}</ref> to include the name of the web page and the date it was published. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources for more, and feel free to ask if you get stuck. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 07:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Kayce Smith

I did leave a message and referenced different articles. You have incorrect and erroneous information on ESPN articles, yet they are still there. why aren't they taken down? Did you look at the other articles I referenced? Other than W2s, transcripts, medical records or even some of Wikipedias correct information what is it you want? I am 2 things for Kayce. 1. I am a promoter. 2. She is my daughter. Everything you have in that article is correct. There are other articles that reference this including her agent. Rons76 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

So, this is made up? ESPN let Kayce have this handle and Twitter verified it? Is your twitter account verified? What is considered a reference? If you are going to edit, do your research. @KayceSmithESPN Tweets 2,961 Following 554 Followers 14.5K Likes 3,148

 Follow

Kayce SmithVerified account  

@KayceSmithESPN

Reporter @ESPN and @SECNetwork. Cancer Survivor. Texas A&M Grad. Just living the American Dream on a TV near you. Repped by @IFManagement.

 'Texas Forever'  KayceSmithTV.com  Joined September 2012 Agency.... IF management.

Gabe Bock @GabeBock

TexAgs Radio @TexAgsRadio

© 2016 Twitter Rons76 (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rons76: firstly I should point out that the article Kayce Smith was deleted by Bishonen and not by me. That said, it was done entirely in line with policy because no references had been added to the article. As I advised above when you asked, we need references (typically in the form of inline citations) adding to all articles which serve as biographies of living people. Neither you nor anyone else had added any to the article in question. That is not to necessarily say that anyone is doubting the accuracy of the information in the article, but simply that no source of the information has been provided, and hence we've no way to back this up. I'm sure you can appreciate why this is important. I'm not sure why you are quite so keen to emphasise that Kayce has a verified twitter account -- this really isn't relevant in this context. What you need to do is to provide reliable sources which back up the information in the article. I'd strongly encourage you to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to understand what I mean by that. Wikipedia is not the place for original research so just being correct per your personal knowledge of the subject isn't enough -- we need to see the information stated somewhere else and for this to be accurately referenced from a Wikipedia article. Finally, you did not previously reveal your personal connection to the subject of the article. In light of this I'd encourage you to read WP:COI, in short "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships". _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Invitation

	Hello, UkPaolo. You are invited to join WikiProject Food and drink, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of food, drink and cuisine topics. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America1000 13:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Radox logo.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, UkPaolo. 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. 17:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy birthday!

Warm regards, Mz7 (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi UkPaolo.

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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, UkPaolo. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to discuss the possibility of you unprotecting an organisation page that we would like created. NCPR16 (talk) 22:34, 26 December 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

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fairtrade.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, UkPaolo. 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)

Select 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_25nf5YyEWszetyR&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) 01:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gardners Books for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gardners Books 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/Gardners Books 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. GMG^talk 12:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, UkPaolo. 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 03:09, 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notability prod etc for WP Glos

Thanks for prodding Axonex. Would you be kind enough to take a look at the "Notability unclear" of the WikiProject Gloucestershire cleanup list and see if you think they meet the notability criteria? Also Vero Software is tagged for buzzword cleanup ("providing solutions") and this is not really my area of expertise.— Rod ^talk 11:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 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. 20:07, 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

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (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 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 Wikipedia: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. — JJMC89 bot 00:06, 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 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 Wikipedia: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. — JJMC89 bot 08:50, 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 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 Wikipedia: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. — JJMC89 bot 01:00, 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 03:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)