User talk:Gwalla/Archive 3

Kids Safety

I Would like to write an article about Safety ,specialy for Kids and Free TIPS!!! What is wrong with that? plus this is a huge subjet, and it can not be done in one day!!! Alfad (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The article you posted was not an encyclopedia article, but an essay or set of tips on child safety. That is inappropriate for Wikipedia, which is intended to be an encyclopedia. It may be of value to the Wikibooks project instead, which aims to be a collection of user-created tutorials and guidebooks. In addition, the title was in ALL CAPS, which is against Wikipedia's guidelines on article titles. — Gwalla | Talk 18:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Children of American Politicians

Regarding this, what about the fact that it's just a copy-paste of Wade Edwards, Cate Edwards and Malia Obama just so the editor could save the third from deletion? Grsz^talk 21:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

They aren't deleted yet, so it doesn't fall under the recreation of deleted material clause. Under current policy, it requires an AFD. I agree that it's a pretty blatant content fork and would support deletion—just not a speedy. — Gwalla | Talk 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI

A tag has been placed on The Bob Experience Discography requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. EMT1871 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bob Experience Discography

I'm not confused, as a courtesy I thought you would like to know that I nominated an article for speedy deletion, that you nominated for deletion. I felt it was a candidate for speedy deletion rather than deletion after a lentgthy discussion. Just wanted to let you know thats allEMT1871 (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Training Air Wing Four

Hi,

I saw the page I created on Training Air Wing Four was citied for copyright issues...on the website, an official US Navy Website it says:

"Notice: This is a U.S. Government Web Site This is a World Wide Web site for official information about Trawing Four. It is provided as a public service by Trawing Four. The purpose is to provide information and news about Trawing Four to the general public.

All information on this site is public domain and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified."

I was curious why the page was taken down, I lost the VT-27 Boomers page for the same reason, but it is under the same command?!

Thanks

Q —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbird78 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the page that says that? — Gwalla | Talk 02:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

no problem, thanks https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw4/privacy.asp

bigbird78 —Preceding comment was added at 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcoming

Hi, thanks for welcoming me to wikipedia and advising me to use the sandbox and so forth, but I believe you selected the wrong unregistered IP. My recent edit to Japanese language simply undid an apparent attempt at vandalism by 142.169.232.2 (talk). You most likely meant to issue the declaration to 142.33.114.130 (talk}, which made the edit you reverted, and has a history of nonconstructive edits (he had 3 others that day as well). Anyway, thanks for the welcoming none the less... -70.231.128.132 (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry. — Gwalla | Talk 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Jrb2662

Does an edit history like this: [1] (23 pure vandalism pages in 5 minutes) warrant just a 3 hour block? I have seen indef blocks for less. Could you please reconsider this short time block? Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I hadn't seen the scale of his vandalism when I did that. — Gwalla | Talk 18:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that :). As a little additional request, is it also possible to permanently remove the talk page by the same procedure? Apparently the user found it necessarily to blast in a goatse image in table format before being blocked [2]. Personally i don't think that anyone should be able to restore or see that, both for the fear of that persons stomach, and for the idea that another user might copy it over. Thanks in advance :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but I can protect it so he can't do that again. — Gwalla | Talk 18:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, somebody already did it. — Gwalla | Talk 18:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Advertising Deletion

Why was my article (Blackerby's Hangar 5) deleted? You claim it was a blatant advertisement, but it was a neutral post meant only to inform. It was completely objective and did not attempt in any way to persuade any person. It referenced only neutral and independent sources. Tennisman555 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The article consisted only of location, hours of operation, and a brief description of the menu. It also contained no verifiable claims to notability. In other words, it was indistinguishable from the sort of advertising copy found in the yellow pages or a local restaurant guide. If you recreate the article, please explain what makes it notable (e.g. breaking records, site of an important historical event, famous firsts, etc.) and provide neutral sources so people can see that it's not a mere advertisement. — Gwalla | Talk 19:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Megaphoning.com Deletion

Had you given me more than 4 seconds to complete the page you would have seen that I was showing the world a new type of music creation. How can this be advertising? I cannot add images as you will now allow me before I've been registered 4 days. I dont see how you can have read, understood and accepted my entire website, philosophy and new creation in the time it took you to delete my method of music creation. Just shows what wikipedia is all about. Money. Why is my site different from facebook or myspace? They both have their own pages. Enough said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amulrooney (talk • contribs)

I would advise you to read the policy and guideline pages linked in the messages I left on your userpage. Note, in particular, the fact that articles on websites, which do not assert notability, may be deleted immediately. MySpace and Facebook are major forces, for better or for worse, on the web, with huge userbases and copious coverage in the media. See Wikipedia's criteria for notability of websites. A social network that has only existed for a few months (judging by the copyright date) and has only 13 users is unlikely to qualify unless it has been involved in an incident that received significant press attention. It may one day become a subject of great import, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and potential future notability has no bearing on whether a subject is notable enough to require an article at present. If your purpose in creating an article is to promote the site in question, please be aware that Wikipedia is not an advertising medium; Wikipedia articles must adhere to a neutral point of view, and overt promotion as well as detraction must be avoided. If you look at the articles on MySpace and Facebook, you'll notice that both have large sections devoted to criticism of and controversies concerning both sites: MySpace's problems with sexual predators and Facebook's with violations of user privacy, among other issues, are covered in detail.

By the way, I noticed that you refer to it as "my website" and "my method of music creation", and that your username closely resembles the name of the site's copyright holder. If you are indeed the owner or an employee of the site, that would constitute a conflict of interest. Editing on topics in which you have a personal stake is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If you are not the holder of copyright on that site, the extract from the site included in the article you wrote would be a copyright violation, which is absolutely prohibited.

If and when Megaphoning.com does eventually become a major social network, we would welcome a neutral, non-promotional article written by unbiased third parties. Until then, I wish you the best of luck with your site. — Gwalla | Talk 05:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope you're not eating your words in a few months then my friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amulrooney (talk • contribs) 13:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Excirial/ArchiveTemplate

You accidentally created this in article space at Excirial/ArchiveTemplate. I moved it into your userspace for you. — Gwalla | Talk 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for that Gwalla. I guess i should quit doing any heavy duty editing at 01:00 :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BAND

Think you were right about contesting those prods at Cannibal Holocaust (EP) and Holocausto de la Morte, im afraid I read the guideline wrong. " if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." I originally read it to say wheter the band is notable, the albums aren't. FelisLeo^Talk! 20:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Feff

You speedy deleted my article, thats okay. But I was writing about a real band called FEFF, look here http://cdbaby.com/cd/feff for information. They have one album, I need to make the article a stubb but havent got round to that yet sorry. Hope you can let me carry on editing the page.

Another source: http://daz.com/artists/FEFF.html Also they're myspace http://www.myspace.com/feffmusic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xolith (talk • contribs) 18:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Xolith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xolith (talk • contribs) 18:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Family Online Safety Institute

You wrote that it was blatant copyright infringement. As the author of the article, I have permission from FOSI to copy directly from its website. What do I need to do to verify this with Wikipedia? Please reply on my talk page or the site's talk page. Thanks. Pastadog42 (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC) thanks for the reply. I did try rewriting and had the page deleted again. However, I do have permission from the FOSI CEO to use that information, he actually said he would prefer using those words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastadog42 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of random..

But I saw your userpage in passing and thought i'd give you a musical tip; you might want to check out Pure Reason Revolution, I thoroughly recommend them. Ironholds 01:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I already know of them, but thanks! — Gwalla | Talk 18:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder By Tejuana & Treachery By Bush and the Supreme Court

Regarding your comment here -- if something is up at AfD, it can still be speedied if the speedy is appropriate. This one seems to fall under either G11 (advertising) or G3 (hoax/misinfo), so if the speedy fits, zap it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know I can speedy things on AfD. I just usually don't unless people are actually calling for speedy. And also, in this case, because it did turn up in a copyright search. — Gwalla | Talk 17:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Circle of fifths graphic

Hi, editors are developing a new Circle of fifths graphic. We could use your input. --Jtir (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting my name from Wikipedia is UNFAIR

"Vanity, non-notable author(s?). — Gwalla | Talk 18:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

EXCUSE ME!

My name is Kam Ruble. I am a recognized, published author of mystery books ("Have No Mercy" series), children's picture book ("Princess Annado Tandy's Versery-Rhymes"), and E-books ("Dawg Eyes" series). One only has to Google my name; check out my books on Amazon.com [3]; or, ask any 'brick and mortar' bookstore to order my book if it is not on the shelves of their favorite bookstore. In fact, I had two books released in November/December 2008.

Furthermore, even though my books are published through the POD (print on demand) method, GAP (Global Authors Publications) is NOT considered a 'Vanity Press'.

It would be nice if facts were checked 'correctly' before votes are taken to delete a person from Wikipedia. I find the deletion of my name from Wikipedia not only unfair, but some of the comments a bit slanderous. I believe my name and my information should be reinstated, and I should receive apologies from all of you who voted to delete me.

Thank you. ShadowsMysteryQueen (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Kam Ruble

endolabial vs exolabial

Hey Gwalla,

A couple years ago you wrote on roundedness that back rounded vowels tend to be exolabial (pursed) and front rounded vowels tend to be endolabial (compressed). That seems right to me, but I'm not terribly familiar with front rounded vowels, only knowing them from a couple languages. Assuming it is right, we need to completely revamp Close front compressed vowel. Since that means a lot of parallel adjustments on the other vowel articles, I wanted to check with you first. Also, what do we do with the Norwegian central vowels? Are central rounded vowels more like front or back vowels? Or is this something I should ask Peter Isotalo about? kwami (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Man, that was ages ago! I can't even remember what reference I was working from, and that was before the policies on citing sources got tightened up. I'm afraid I won't be much help at this point. By all means, ask an expert, because I'm not one, just somebody with an amateur interest in the subject and access to a library. — Gwalla | Talk 07:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Redaction at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airi & meiri

If you'd like to see what was removed, all but one later comment by Dekkappai were redacted here. I liberally removed Cerejota's and Dekkappai's sniping at each other. I didn't redact Everyking's comment; he's just being sarcastic. Feel free to replace anything of value I removed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent block of MQS

Hi Gwalla, could you expand on this block rationale? [4] I'm not even remotely able to discern a personal attack in that diff, and further, although I really have tried, I'm not able to find the previous warning for civility. Thanks in advance! Franamax (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Blocks on User:MichaelQSchmidt and User:Cerejota[5] both seem quite disproportionate to the comments they made.[6] I propose they should both be unblocked immediately. Ty 17:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

New one for me, but same concerns there. For me, the clock is ticking as I wait for a response. I'd say 18:01 is a resonable time to go to ANI for a review. Franamax (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The warning was here. — Gwalla | Talk 17:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The comments then made by the users were not excessive in their tone.[7]] Do you have any objection to an unblock for both? Ty 17:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(after e/c and yes, pls unblock both) Yes, I just found that and read up on the associated frippery. I agree that action was needed, but that action seems to be needed for Cerejota. I'm not able to discern any incivility on the part of MQS, merely patient response to comments with no escalation. Please rescind the block on MQS immediately (or as time served, though I don't feel that's justified either). I'll keep looking at Cerejota's actions - however, there's no need for symmetrical blocks when only one is misbehaving, and (with respect) there's no need for anyone to comply with your particular definition of misbehaviour. And in any case, your cited links show no evidence of incivility. Please reconsider. Franamax (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you insist, go for it. I still believe that both users were out of line: MQS's praeteritio was a jab, and I can't see how Cerejota's "sourcetards" couldn't be construed as offensive. I believe that I was quite clear in my warning that I was not going to tolerate the current level of incivility in that AfD, and that I was going to come down hard on people who continued to snark at and bait each other. — Gwalla | Talk 17:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry about the delays in replying; I'm at work right now. I'll unblock MQS. — Gwalla | Talk 17:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. On review (just finished now, I'm slow:), after uncovering all those <redacted>s, Cerejota and some others were stepping over the line and I'd agree that a preventive block for Cerejoup was in order. Even though their rhetoric had cooled somewhat from MIBs warning, it was still disruptive. MQS though, I do believe was making honest commentary and made no edits that went over the line, in fact could credibly be held as not having a clue, since the redactions happened before he ever came along. Yes, I'm his grandaddy and watch over his edits :) From my observations of and interaction with MQS, he has no intention of straying close to a block - this is a very unfortunate blot on his record. If you have time, please review in depth and consider annotating the block log to indicate that no fault was discovered. Regards! Franamax (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to pile on, and I understand where the block came from, but the comment MQS responded to included the phrasing "I am not for wiping our asses with WP:NOTE simply because some wikipedians worked hard on (the article)." This kind of phrasing isn't very civil. MQS's response could have been phrased better, but is not an unresonable response. Thanks to Gwalla for unblocking. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't argue that he wasn't provoked. But had added my warning after that in hopes that everybody would make an effort to raise the level of discourse: that those involved would cut it out, and other people wouldn't start. My warning didn't single out specific users, or apply only to those who had been causing problems before it was posted, so I didn't apply it just to those users. I don't like selective enforcement; I think it undermines the purpose, and makes it look like playing favorites.

As for annotating the block log, I haven't got any idea how to do that. I'm not sure it's even possible. — Gwalla | Talk 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the unblocking, and was surprised the block took place 9 hours after I had given up on being able to make any contributions at that AfD.

Sidebar: Although the block was lifted 5 hours ago, it has only been in the last few minutes that I have actually been able to edit, else I would have commented here much earlier. And I myself would love to have somebody figure out how to annotate the block log. Somebody must know how it can be done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It can only be annotated when blocking or unblocking. Sometimes a 1 second block is made in order to annotate, but the unblock link to this discussion will probably have to suffice on this occasion. Ty 13:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Gwalla, thank you for your response to concerns above and also for taking the initiative in addressing the problems occurring in the AfD. Ty 13:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

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

--J.Mundo (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Talkback

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

Cerejota (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Special:Block/74.94.18.57

It may not have been your intention, but you've blocked this IP indefinitely. Would you have a problem if I (or you) set an expiry for this block? Thanks, –xeno (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you really want, I suppose. But the IP has been used for nothing but vandalism, and has been repeatedly temp-blocked only to resume vandalizing articles as soon as the block has expired. I don't expect this pattern to change. — Gwalla | Talk 07:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a comcast IP address so it could presumably be re-assigned, which is why a block length should be set so the block can be reevaluated on a yearly or semi-yearly basis and it doesn't show up in WP:INDEFIP. We don't typically block IPs indefinitely. I've set the block for 6 months and will keep an eye on it. –xeno (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair. — Gwalla | Talk 18:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I never intended to remove anything from the AfD. I can only guess that I was reading Sam's response to mine, was delayed in responding, and didn't refresh the article before I responded. --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's it. I was dealing with some rather improper comments and accusations by Sam, before responding to his comment in the AfD. More than a bit distracted there. Again, sorry. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Just be careful in the future, okay? — Gwalla | Talk 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

English passive voice

See my explanation on the article's talk page as to why I took out the portion of the Pullum quote that discussed become + passive. I don't feel terribly strongly about it, but I think the reasons for leaving it out, at least without further explanation, do bear consideration. John M Baker (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that Wikipedia's policies are infallible

I've taken an issue with you on my own talk page. It's not personal; it has to do with Wikipedia's general policy of publishing IP addresses of people who forget to sign with four tildes.

I do maintain that that policy IS indeed obscure. Your argument that it's practical for Wiki's admininstration department doesn't make it less obscure or less of an invasion of privacy.

While I was, indeed, sincere about my apology for my flippant first reply, I have to say I find the response condescending; and I remain in the opinion that publishing people's IP addresses without their express consent is as offensive as any name-calling I might think of.

Of course, I realize that you have nothing to do with Wikipedia's decision to invade contributors' privacy in this way, but there's no other obvious venue of discussion for that matter. Perhaps you could direct me to the proper forum for such issues?

Bantaar (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have issues with Wikipedia policy, the best place to bring it up is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). The "village pump" pages are the main venues for project-wide discussion.

FWIW, I have never claimed that Wikipedia's policies are infallible. I have, in fact, had input on some changes. — Gwalla | Talk 23:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! You're a good sport, evidently :) . Of course you didn't claim that Wiki's policies are infallible, but hyperbole may sometimes expedite understanding, if you know what I mean. All best to you! Bantaar (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ConScript Unicode Registry

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article ConScript Unicode Registry, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

There are no reliable independent sources to establish notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. —Ashley Y 08:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Deletion review for Jealousy Curve

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jealousy Curve. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 71.185.242.95 (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Relisting notice

Per Spartaz's request, I am notifying you that this discussion that you participated in has been relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Healy (2nd nomination) in the hopes to gain a more fair consensus due to the participation of three sock puppet accounts in the earlier discussion. The three sock accounts that checkuser confirmed are the same person voted to delete or redirect and made multiple edits to the discussion which closed as "redirect" and therefore may have created a false impression of consensus by vote-stacking. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Just look at the code for my signature. You'll figure it out! ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Edward Chastain

Until I started making some noise about the article, it would have stayed in a state of disarray. The main issue was the fact that he is not notable and the the article doesn't seem show me how he is notable. There are a multitude of wrestlers who have had generally the same path in wrestling as him and don't have an article because they are not notable. So why should we make an exception for him? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter message

It has recently been brought to the attention of WP:PW that the newsletter is being to delivered to several users who have not been actively editing for several months. As a result, their talk pages have become increasingly large, unmanageable and slow to load due to a lack of archiving.
In response, this message is being sent to all editors listed in Category:WikiProject Professional wrestling participants to say that anyone who does not list their name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Active before May 16 will be automatically listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Nospam, and will no longer receive the newsletter or any notification of it. If you are added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Nospam, please feel free to remove your name if you desire.
If you wish to continue receiving the newsletter as normal, please add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Active. If you simply wish to receive notification of a new issue, but not have the full newsletter delivered to your talk page, please add your name to the notification only list.
If you have any queries please contact me at my talk page or leave a message at WT:PW. Thank you for your co-operation. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Gwalla,

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

So a few things about the interviews:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 23:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's been years since I was active as an administrator. — Gwalla | Talk 07:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	In lieu of the Yoga project's own barnstar, I award you for linking the terms in our article! Curb Chain (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Captain Haddock

Hi Gwalla. What would you say about this page, for example. Is it a reliable source: Tintin et l'aviation —Prhartcom (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That appears to be a personal website (I could be wrong; I don't know any French but it doesn't look like a professional publication). Those are considered WP:SELFPUBLISHed and therefore generally don't qualify as reliable sources. See WP:USERGENERATED. — Gwalla | Talk 19:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Dark House request

hey mate i was wondering if you could help me find the list that was on the deleted page Dark House? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhuhuh8989 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 May 2010‎

This had been posted unsigned above my welcome message, so I didn't notice it for years. Moving it down into the message area. FWIW, it looks like he asked several people and somebody else already answered his query. — Gwalla | Talk 19:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Optical Character Recognition (Unicode block) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Optical Character Recognition|work=The Unicode Standard, Version 6.3|accessdate=27 February 2014}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoops! Fixed. — Gwalla | Talk 23:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Music of Norway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Postgirobygget (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2014 (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) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Gwalla. 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. 17:48, 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) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Gwalla.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gwalla. 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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gwalla. 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)

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

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite plot points

Template:Cite plot points has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gwalla. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gwalla. 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 02:26, 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)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)