Misplaced Pages

User talk:Nandesuka: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:21, 25 July 2006 editKillerChihuahua (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 edits Kwanzaa← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:26, 17 May 2024 edit undoIntrisit (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,670 edits Added "Not around" template per a glance at the user's contributions page. 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Not around|date=14 January 2022}}
Archives: ] ] ]
Archives: ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
== Please create sections below ==
==Welcome==


Thanks.
Please leave me a message below, if you're so inclined. ] 20:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


== Request for comment ==


Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by {{noping|Anna Frodesiak}}. Your comments ] is very much appreciated. Many thanks. ] through ] (]) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The soapbox comment was unnecessary. (re: Vulva discussion) ] 04:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Jim Cartar@enwiki using the list at //en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_administrators -->


== ] ==
I hope you're not upset about my edit on your User page. It was a tongue-in-cheek response to your note on Vandalism. I only noticed you because you edited my user page to fix the User box. Have a great day! ] 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Please reduce the protection on this article back down to semi-protected status. Misplaced Pages users should not capitulate to the single purpose accounts and POV pushers trying to say "it's biased it's biased" when it reflects the current weight of the subject across all reliable sources. It also only recently was unprotected and this just puts it into the same stagnation it was before. There was no call for full protection this time and one extremely obvious SPA's actions should not lock everything down, again.—] (]) 02:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
==Mutilation and so on==


== ] ==
As it seems the concerned edtiors of the various articles ] and ] are unable to come to a consensus perhaps a request for comment or moderation is appropriate? ] 11:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


For blocks placed through general sanctions, you should use ] in future. ] — ] 03:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
: Sure. Either or both is fine with me. ] 11:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


* Thanks for the pointer. ] (]) 03:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
== ] ==


Don't feel like making a new thread. How does ]?—] (]) 04:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see my comments on this re ], and reconsider if you think a DRV is needed for it. — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
:I suppose my "reason for the undelete" was that I disagree that this falls under T1, not just that a prior deletion turned in a '''keep''' result. Had you not already listed it on DRV, I would have suggested bringing it back to tfd. In any case the drv may result in a consensus to delete, and following consensus is the only way to keep this project in one piece. Thanks, — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


: Looks like mostly reasonable editing to me. Is there a specific series of edits you want to point out?? ] (]) 12:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
== DU ==


== ] ==
The chemistry of normal natural uranium is the same as both enriched uranium and DU. The isotopic nature of the uranium has next to no effect on the chemistry. So why if the paper was about normal U is it not OK to use it in a DU page ?] 20:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, the price quoted in the ORNL paper doesn't strike one as outrageously expensive. DU sells at USD 20/kg, to put it into perspective, copper sells at about half that. ] 21:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691991546 -->


==Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity==
== Adminship renewal discussion ==
]
Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return&nbsp;if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated&nbsp;should this occur, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at ]. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->] (]) 00:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


==Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity==
Is now at ], due to typo on my part. My apologies if it confused you. - ] 13:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
]
Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return&nbsp;if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated&nbsp;should this occur, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at ]. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->] (]) 00:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


== Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity ==
== What happened to the 2005 2006 USA Israel threats to Iran article ==


]
I think that's what it was called. I understand you deleted it. Was this as a result of the Articles for Deletion? If so, would you kindly tell where the arhived article and the results of the poll are stored. Thank you very much. ] 14:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated , please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at ]. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin --> <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 13:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
: The debate is ]. Kind regards, ] 14:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
::Thank you so very much for your prompt reply. ] 14:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
::Another question (sorry). Are we allowed to start up another (new) article on the same topic, with some of the details from the old article. The reason is that some of the issues in the topic are important, both from a current and historical perspective. Note that the new article would try to be NPOV, ie, a general converage of the situation, not targeting specific countries, and giving all sides of the story. Thank you again. ] 14:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
:::OK. I will have a look a the debate again. Thank you very much for your advice. ] 15:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't have chance to read that deleted article. I looked at the vote for deletion . Among 49, only 26 users have voted to delete it (a very slim majority). The voting has ended today (May 14). If you count votes until May 13, the votes for deletion are 16 (out of 38 votes) which is not a majority. For this kind of controversial topics (when there is no clear consensus), shouldn't you extend the voting time? ] 23:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
::::What are the criteria for deciding to delete an article. It is a straight majority after a certain time? Does Strong Keep get move votes than Keep. Are the arguments taken into consderation? Is it an automatic process, or does an admin think "hmmm, looks close, I'll toss a coin?". Thanks. ] 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


== ] ==
==Zephram Stark==
As a recently ] sysop <small>(''per ] at ]</small>''), welcome back to the admin corps. We always need help at ] if there are any areas you can help with that would be most welcomed. Happy mopping! — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I only changed it back because the ban timer was set at 6 months. Sorry. --] | ] 15:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


== Extended confirmed protection ==
:It was when I looked in the block log. --] | ] 15:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
::Heya -- what happened here was that ] intended to reset the de jure 6 month ban, did not notice that a de facto indefinite ban had been imposed. So the edit was, technically, correct. I'm curious how Sunfazer noticed the block change. --]] 16:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


{{ivmbox|1=Hello, Nandesuka. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
== Misanthropist ==


] (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 ] was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following ] with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
why did you delete the Misanthropist User Template ? ]] 11:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


In July and August 2016, ] 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:
: See ]. ] 12:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
* '''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 ] of each use'''. MusikBot currently does this by updating ], which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review ] carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. <br><small>This message was sent to the administrators' ]. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)</small> |2=Padlock-blue.svg}}
<!--Message sent following discussion at WT:PP-->
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators/Message_list&oldid=737471142 -->


== Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins ==


Hello,
==66.25.132.168==


Please note that ] 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 ] in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the ] 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 ]. ] (]) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not a sock puppet to WoW so please unblock me.. May you please unblock me.. I am not a sock puppet to WoW. I don't even know what that is! 66.25.132.168 is a school IP! There are many students that use this site. And if the IP is blocked indefently, That means no one can contribute to Misplaced Pages! Please unblock me.
<!-- Message sent by User:Mike V@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mike_V/All_admins&oldid=749162175 -->


== A new user right for New Page Patrollers ==
== nathan's talk ==


Hi {{BASEPAGENAME}}.
when did he give you permission to do this ? I know him and I am almost 100% sure he would not have given you permission to do so. <font color="red">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="limegreen">]</font>] <sup>(</sup>]<sup>—</sup>]<sup>—</sup>]<sup>—</sup>]<sup>)</sup> 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


A new user group, ], 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 ]. 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.
: "I'm on Wikibreak so I don't care what you do to this page." ] 18:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


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 ] but very often a friendly custom message works best.
::That is more of a "I don't give a fuck anymore" message than a "You can change this if you want to". <font color="red">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="limegreen">]</font>] <sup>(</sup>]<sup>—</sup>]<sup>—</sup>]<sup>—</sup>]<sup>)</sup> 18:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at ]. <small>''(Sent to all admins)''</small>.] (]) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::: Ah, OK. Thank you for clarifying. ] 19:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Kudpung@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators/Message_list&oldid=748418714 -->


== ]: Voting now open! ==
==Inches or Centimeters==
]
((1) you're wrong, (2) there are already enough images.)


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Nandesuka. Voting in the ''']''' 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 ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
1. I am including an image of the actual scale used in the photo. You can see it next to the reverse side showing the cm scale (1 inch=2.54cm=25.4mm). Hopefully this satisfies you that the scale is in inches as the caption says.


If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/7&oldid=750547185 -->
== Proposed deletion of ] ==
]


The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
2. I added the image as I thought it was educational. There are two images on the page which seems odd given there is such diversity in erections. I thought having an image of one with a greater angle and some curvature would be informative to readers.
:'''Not the subject of ] from ], ]. <small>(])</small> No in-depth hits in a ] and no suitable redirect targets (isn't known as an employee or designer of a single company/game).'''


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ].
] 08:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
== Trimming needed ==
Have you ever looked at the ] article? It begins with ''"It is nearly impossible to accurately measure the depth of a phenomenon's popularity..."'' - ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 11:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> <span style="background:#F0F0FF; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 08:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
==Hell==
It's not a personal attack, just an observation. I said "might" instead of "should." Fear of hell depends on your religious beliefs and your (you too) own inner sense of right and wrong. Regardless, we are all responsible (liable) for the consiquences of our actions.] 14:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter - February 2017 ==
== Circumcision comments ==


] from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please ]. Your ] is welcomed.
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. ] and ] only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain ] with your comments. Thanks! <!-- from Template:Civil1 --> ] 04:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
: Thanks for your comments! I disagree with your belief that I was incivil, but I will certainly take your words under advisement. ] 11:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
:] ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ]
:] ] • ] • ]


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
==Mediation==
:*A ] to workshop proposals to amend the ] at ] has been in process since late December 2016.
:*] closed with no consensus for implementing ] with new criteria for use.
:*Following ], an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.


] '''Technical news'''
Hi, I'm going to be mediating your case, regarding the Medical analysis of circumcision.
:*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. (])
:*Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Misplaced Pages, an ] closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (])
:* The Foundation has ] a new ] to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.


] '''Arbitration'''
The mediation will take place ]. If you are planning to take a wiki-break in the near-future or will be unable to partcipate in the mediation could you please let me know. --]]] 19:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
:*The Arbitration Committee released ] to the Wikimedia Foundation's ].


] '''Obituaries'''
== Copyvios ==
:* ] (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Misplaced Pages seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

PLEASE be more careful when looking for copyvios. Other sites copy us too. See ]. --] 14:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

==Mediation News==

I've now added my initial questions and comments on ]. I would ask that you add this page to your watchlist, as this will be where the mediation will take place.

As I've said on the page, we must keep all debate Civil, and I will not tolerate any personal attacks. In order to resolve the issue all of you must be willing to listen to each other's view. It does appear that you have debated this issue qutie extensively already, and so if we are to achieve anything we must not keep repeating what has already been said, although reference may well be needed back to previous comments you have made.

If you have any questions or comments then please either e-mail me or leave a message on my talk page. Again if you are planning to take a Wikibreak, or know you will be unable to access Misplaced Pages for any length of time then please do infrom me.

I look forward to working with you. --]]] 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

SPAM WARNING - quasi form letter follows! (#4)<br/>
I'm attempting to open the biggest can of worms ever. You're a nice balance between "hard arse" and "man of the people." So I'd like to hear your thoughts on the category I've just created. <br/>]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 07:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

== F1 portal featured article ==

The F1 portal (in which I assume you have some degree of interest, as your name is listed on ]) is intended to have a regular rotation of a 'featured article'. I've swapped a few in and out over the last couple of months, but I think it would be better if there were more of a community attempt at deciding this, proposals, votes, that kind of thing. So - why not pop over to ] and make a suggestion. Ta. ] 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

== Signature ==

Beat ya to the punch! :-) Is this one good? --] ] ] <sup>(])</sup> 15:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Any better? --]] <sup>] ]</sup> 17:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

== Thank you for your comments in ] ]! ==

{|cellspacing=7px style="background-color:Yellow; padding: 0px; border: 1px solid #888; halign:center;valign:center;"
|-
|rowspan=2 style="background-color:white; padding: 10px 0px 0px 0px; border: 1px solid #888;"|<center>]<small>
''We are here to build an ]!''</small></center>
|style="background-color: lightyellow; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #888;"|
Hi Nandesuka, and thank you for your positive comments in my ]! (I got the buttons!!) With a final tally of '''(109/5/1)''', I have been entrusted with ]. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a ] . Please ] what you think! Thanks again and I hope to live up to the trust you've placed in me! '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
|-
|style="background-color: lightyellow; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #888;"|<small>'''Adverts:''' Like ]?... Like ]?... In a WikiProject that ]?... Are ] an ] admin?... Got ]?...</small>
|}

==RE: "wanking," etc.==
Hi. Please ensure that personal attacks directed against me are limited to IRC or anywhere else outside the wiki. Thank you in advance. ] 02:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
:I interpreted that comment as a description of #wikipedia in general rather than of you or any other individual. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah, I just said pretty much the same thing on El C's talk page. --]] 02:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
:::If that was the case, I misread that and I offer my sincere apologies. ] 02:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
:::: I wasn't even speaking of #wikipedia. That's pretty much my impression of IRC as a whole. It wasn't intended as a direct personal attack on any one person, but as a general critique (or, if you will, insult) of the medium. ] 03:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, I'm a bit on edge. Thanks for understanding. Regards, ] 03:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)



== Concerned over your censoring Cuzandor's remarks ==

I'm not defending him, he was way out of line. But if you completely remove any sign that he made the remarks, people might not realize what sort of person they are dealing with when they talk to him. (Of course, the edit history is still there, but it's not as immediately obvious.) I've always felt that it's best to let a fool dig his own grave with his mouth. By cleaning up after Cuzandor, you're just making it easier for him to avoid the consequences of his actions. Cheers, ] 02:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:In addition, he replaced Cuz's unthinking insensitivity with an allegation of bigotry. This is not an improvement. It's hardly even civil. ] 03:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:: I am perfectly comfortable describing someone who talks about "African savages" as a bigot. If you're not, then that's your problem. ] 03:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:As I saw it, he was describing circumcision as savagery. Now, I wouldn't go that far, but I would also ], unlike you. ] 03:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:: I think the phrase "And how the savages in africa or australia or whatever do it too" is perfectly clear in its intent, and that you wish to make excuses for such bigotry is shameful. ] 03:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:Like I said, I assume good faith, which is what makes me such a good person. When given a chance, Cuz changed "savages" to "circumcisers", just as I expected. Speaking of expectations, your claims about my support for bigotry are as false as they are uncivil. But, of course, I don't expect you to admit this, much less apologize. Fortunately, I'm a good person, so I'll forgive you in advance. ] 03:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:: You are welcome to protest that supporting (and re-adding) the phrase "how the savages in africa or australia or whatever" doesn't constitute support for bigotry as much as you like. I'm confident that all will see that you protest too much. ] 04:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Are you replying to Alienus or to me? The lack of nesting to these remarks makes them a little hard to follow. ] 04:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC):

:::: Nesting fixed. Thanks. :-) ] 11:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know savage was an offensive word ] 01:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:Connotations often don't translate well. This is why we assume good faith. ] 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

== Episiotomy ==

Better sources? At least here in Brazil they do episidotomies just like they do circumcisions in USA Check this:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7343/945

and this:

http://www.gentlebirth.org/nwnm.org/Tragedy_Routine_Episiotomy.htm

] 01:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

== re: ] ==
Sir? I confess that I'm confused... did I do something which you think is wrong? Can I help rectify it? ] ] 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
: Heh... no worries. Yeah, I don't really get where he's coming from, myself. Or Alienus. I'd like to try and explain myself to help them out, but I don't understand them so I'm having some trouble. I'll think of something, though... or at least I'll try. :) ] ] 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just saw your comments over there. Never mind, I don't think there's much I can do, unfortunately. *sigh* ] ] 18:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

== Acuccowhatever ==

You are wrong. A Google search indicates the word is in very much and in fact widely used, and in the proper manner (as a synonym for the state of circumcision, although there is the odd -philia confusion). So ''ridiculous made-up word that nobody actually uses.'' is provably and verifiably false. Matter of fact is that for some reason that I do not really understand you do object to the addition of this word. Since you have repeatedly shown that you do not act in good faith, but conciously try to provoke people into breaking WP:CIV and WP:3RR as well as other rules, I must assume you, Nandesuka do this purely to annoy me and Alienus (who you, I believe, percieve as POV-Enemies?). This would constitute ] (As in: "Any change in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the Encyclopedia") and ]. So I must ask you to please cease your vandalism / stalking, Nandesuka. It may get you banned if you continue. ] 14:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: I disagree with your assessment. I think the google search is pretty good evidence that no one actually uses the word. ] 15:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You have now I must again request that you cease your abuse, and be more careful. If you continue your behaviour, you will be blocked from editing on Misplaced Pages. ] 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: Generally speaking, removing personal attacks -- such as the one you were recently blocked for, which you reference above -- is not considered vandalism. Hope that helps. Have a nice day. ] 18:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should have been a block for that attack (indeed, that was my first instinct), but seeing as I missed it by a day I'm not going to do anything about it apart from bringing it up on his talk page, as the situation does not seem to have continued. Let me know if it picks up again in the future and I will happily look into the situation.

As an aside, I disagree with your removing that edit from the Circumcision talk page and from Dabljuh's user page, not because it's an attack, but because it's an attack against you. In the future, I'd recommend bringing the situation to WP:AN or the attention of another administrator such as myself, as I believe it's a bad idea to remove those sorts of things yourself. I don't necessarily disagree with your actions, but I think you'd be better off having a second party taking care of the situation rather than doing it yourself. Best, ] ] 02:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


---- ----
{{center|] • ] • ]}}


13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I saw that you violated 3RR. I wouldn't have reported you without giving you a chance to revert, anyhow, but we're still left with the question of why you're edit-warring to remove what is, at worst, an innocuous entry. What's so horrible about a neutral, boring synonym that makes it worth fighting over? ] 02:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Samwalton9@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/First_issue&oldid=763126991 -->
: I have this thing against nonexistent words. What's your excuse?
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
: Incidentally, I don't think I actually violated 3RR -- one of the edits I was counting was moving your addition of "male genital mutilation" to another place in the introduction that made more sense. But, hey, better safe than sorry. Edit warring is always a bad thing, but it takes two to tango. So, seriously: why are you adding a word that is not used in conversation, is not used in any scientific literature, is not used in any ''non-scientific'' literature, and as near as anyone can tell has an existence entirely within the rarified air of "internet dictionaries of user-contributed sex terms?" ] 03:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.
==]==
Please see my comments ]. Please know that both he and I agree that the tag is needed. ] 13:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:Might I enquire as to whether or not you have '''fully''' apprised yourself of the actual history of that article's archived talk pages? ] and his associated sockpuppets and anon-IPs have gone to long lengths over long periods of time to "own" that article. While I understand your concerns unfortunately I fear that you are editing from a less than fully informed position relative to the article being tagged or not. ] 13:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


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.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> <span style="background:#F0F0FF; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 07:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Nandesuka! Don't remove the POV tag against my very detailled objections. I'm not an electronic library working 24 hours a day on WP. I'd have to do some work on this, re-reading books and articles and identifying good English language sources. 30 seconds is not quite enough for me for me to improve the article. All I'm willing and able to do at the moment is point out why the article seriously needs a POV tag. I did so in considerable detail. Don't expect me to come up overnight with everything that the article needs. ] 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
: What I expect is for you to not tendentiously edit war over the POV tag. ] 14:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:: Well, I don't. I follow proper procedure (From ]): "Guidelines for cleanup - 1. If the discussion presents major issues that have not been fixed in the current article version, even if the discussion is old, leave the NPOV tag on so it can be cleaned up in the future. 2. If the issues are minor and there is no recent discussion, remove the tag. (If someone disagrees they can just put it back!)". This tells me two things: 1. You shouldn't remove the NPOV tag. 2. I "can just put it back". No edit war here. ] 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


== Invitation to Admin confidence survey ==
<nowiki>*shrug*</nowiki> Well, I don't appear to have done much good there. I ''might'' be missing something, but it all seemed clear to me: If someone doesn't want to edit an article, don't. If someone ''does'' want to do something for an article, what difference does a having a tag make? Why people argue over the symptom rather than the disease is beyond me. Anyway, I'll put this article on my "slow cleanup" list so it doesn't totally become an orphan. Sorry I wasn't more help. - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 02:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello,
==Conservative notice board==
Curious, why did you delete it? ] 01:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Misplaced Pages administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
: The page's history and content both demonstrated that it was organized explicitly to push specific political positions, contravening WP:NPOV, which is a core policy here. ] 19:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
==You Know Better==


<big>To take the survey sign up ''']''' and we will send you a link to the form.</big>
Various and sundry persistent trolling from Alienus has been moved to ]. Anyone interested in it may find it there. ] 05:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


We really appreciate your input!
==Personal Attacks==
Regarding this edit: , specifically ''Your failure to describe the facts accurately in this case is, unfortunately, not terribly surprising.''; Although I do not feel this is a blatant personal attack, please be careful to avoid any comments which could be interperated as a personal attack. ] 07:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


<small>Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all ] from the Anti-harassment tools team. </small>
==Your conduct==
'''WHY DON'T YOU STOP STALKING ME! LEAVE MY HARMLESS AND SOURCED EDITS ALONE.''' - ]<font size="1"> ] </font> 14:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
: Please note:


For the Anti-harassment tools team, ] (]) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
* If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
<!-- Message sent by User:SPoore (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=User:SPoore_(WMF)/Admin_confidence_survey_massmessage_list_1&oldid=17221089 -->
] 14:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
== List of pregnancy-related topics listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''List of pregnancy-related topics'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 23:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==
==Block of Brian G. Crawford==


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Nandesuka. Voting in the ''']''' 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.
See here , not sure what's going on but since you already blocked him for one disturbing diff, thought I'd see what you thought about the other one. Since it's his first offense apparently, I dunno, the 72h might be enough. Just thought you might want to see that, if you hadn't already. Thanks. --] 00:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== A short Esperanzial update ==
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on ] as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. . Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.


If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace ] and ] and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on ] and last until ]. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before ]. For more details, see ].
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/07&oldid=813406947 -->
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.
Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


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.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] <sup>]</sup> 19:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
== My user talk page ==


== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==
Can you please put a notice on my user talk page that it is protected and that people should not post on it, especially not admins that non-admins cannot answer to. I'm not going to accept the protection any time soon, so in the mean time I don't want it to be a soapbox for admins! --] 18:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Nandesuka. Voting in the ''']''' 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.
== Re:Alienus ==


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Nandesuka, thanks for the note. I had seen your reply on Al's talk page, but in all honesty I am tired of this issue and don't think it should continue. However, I will reply to your comments, seeing as how you took the time to post on my talk page.


If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
:''The part that doesn't make sense is the argument that an admin must recuse himself from taking an administrative action against an editor simply because he has blocked that editor.''
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/08&oldid=866998273 -->
==Orphaned non-free image File:Mister Rogers&#39; Neighborhood.jpg==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]).


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 18:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
This is not about Tony simply blocking Alienus. Tony did ''not'' simply block Alienus. He blocked him three times in a row, for reasons that were each time disputed. Twice Al was unblocked, because the reasons for the block were not substantial enough, in the eyes of certain admins. The other time, the block was only for 3 hours, a mere formality, which seemed to be Tony's way of telling Al "I'm watching your every move; I have blocking powers and I'm not afraid to use them". Beyond that was the many, many notes the Tony left for Al on Al's talk page, repeating himself over and over, in a way that demonstrated his unwillingness to listen to what others were saying, his unwillingness to try to work things out. This simply continued to escalate, and even now, Tony has not stopped with the unhelpful comments. ''This'' is why I, and others, believe that it is completely reasonable to ask Tony to step away, because the two of them have been going at it for long enough, and there needs to be some room to breathe, for both of them. To claim that this is only about the blocking that took place demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issue at large.


== ArbCom 2019 special circular ==
If you would look back to ], you will see that Alienus politely asked Tony to drop the matter so that they could both get on with their lives. Tony didn't drop it, and Al once again politely asked him to back off. A bit later that day, Tony came back with another issue, that of buddies, with which he then proceded to pester Al again and again, for no apparent reason. The attempts of some of us to find the humor in this topic were met with even more pestering, and a bit of repetition, from Tony. The next day came quite a few posts from Tony about edit warring. Now, whether or not Al was edit warring is not the issue here, but the fact that Tony felt that he had to pound this in again and again, and that he appeared to be baiting Al, just waiting for him to loose his composure. I could go on... but I think the talk page speaks for itself.


<div class="notice" style="background:#fff1d2; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height:40px; line-height:130.7%; font-weight: 130.7%;">
:''If Alienus thinks that Tony has taken inappropriate action, then he should use the dispute resolution process to solve the problem. Until and unless he does that, the argument that Tony has to ignore Al's behavior should be taken as seriously as the claim that the other 7 or so admins who blocked him were all corrupt and/or incompetent''
{|

|valign="top" style="padding: 0.5em 1em 0 0.25em;"| ]
And I urge him to take this matter through a dispute resolution process. However, I completely disagree with the last part here: this has ''nothing'' to do with the other admins who have blocked Alienus. This is about a conflict between Al and Tony that has escalated. Personally, I don't know the history behind the previous blocks, so I can't speak for or against their validity. But I think that claiming that Al's attitude toward Tony right now reflects on the other blocking admins is just blowing this out of proportion, as they are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
|<span style="font-size: 125%;">'''Administrators ] secure their accounts'''</span>

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
To me, this seems to be a case of a trigger-happy admin who doesn't know when to quit. It is a good policy that admins not block users with whom they are in article-related disputes; however, I think that it would also be wise to not allow the same admin to repeatedly block a particular editor. This brings up a whole new category of warring, and I don't think we really want to go there.
* Use strong, unique passwords for your Misplaced Pages account and associated email

* ] if your Misplaced Pages account password or email password is reused on another website, , or weak
I hope I have addressed all of the pertinent issues. I don't expect you to agree with any of my points here, but I do hope that you will come to see this issue as more complex than a simple block. Thank you, ]]] <small>]]</small> 18:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
* ] for improved security

|}
:Thanks for the reply. I understand your points, but like I said, I know nothing about the histories involved in the previous blocks, so i can't speak to them. I realize that Al's most recent unblock was conditional, but I also would like to point out that they were able to reach a compromise that they both agreed with, and this reflects very well on both Al and Sasquatch. This in itself does not necessarily reflect poorly on Tony, but the fact that he then came in and made some more unhelpful comments does, in my opinion, demonstrate his unwillingness to let it go peacefully, as everyone else seems prepared to do.
<span style="color:#5871C6;cursor:pointer" class="mw-customtoggle-ArbCom_2019_special_circular">{{clickable button 2|1=View additional information|link=no}}</span>

</div><div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ArbCom_2019_special_circular" style="display:none">
:I also would hope that the opinions of administrators are not the only important opinions around. It may be true that more admins agreed with the most recent blocks than did not, but several regular editors found them inapropriate and said so, even a couple who have not had a good history with Alienus. I know the rest of us don't have special powers like you and Tony, but we do have valid opinions that should be taken into consideration. Thanks, ]]] <small>]]</small> 18:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
<div style="border-style: dotted; border-color: #886644; border-width: 0 3px 3px 3px; padding: 0 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em;">

::I am glad. In this light of agreement, then, I suggest that enough electronic blood has been spilled over this topic already, and that we should leave it at that. ]]] <small>]]</small> 19:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A while ago, you extended the olive branch and I accepted it. As part of this, I agreed not to automatically revert the comments you make on my talk page. Unfortunately, your recent actions have made your presence once again unwelcome. In the end, it's all up to you: if you want to hold a grudge and speak against me everytime the excuse comes up, you can't expect me to take your peace offering seriously. If you post on my talk page again, expect to be reverted. ] 02:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

: Your hypersensitivity really isn't my problem. ] 02:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your behavior is. Enough said. ] 06:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

: I agree -- you've said enough. If you believe I have behaved inappropritaely, then stop handwaving and do something appropriate about it rather than engaging in tendentious behavior. Since you are apparently incapable or unwilling to distinguish between civilized discourse and simple vandalism, as your continued inappropriate use of popups to rollback comments indicates, I will assume that if you leave a message on my talk page, you are trolling. Until, of course, you care to indicate that you're ready to behave like an adult. Everyone can change. I hope that you do. ] 11:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

== What's your problem? ==

What on earth are you deleting tons of external links to various versions of online texts? Who are you to decide what is the best version? Some versions are good for online reading, some are good for downloading to other readers, some are good for searching purposes. Some are different translations, some contain pictures, etc.. there is no reason to delete these links - what an incredible waste. -- ] 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

: Who am I? Easy question: I'm an editor. Why am I deleting those links? Because ''most'' of them are spam links that duplicate perfectly good Gutenberg links. Misplaced Pages, you may have heard. is not google. ] 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::Gutenberg is not always the best source - for one, many editions include annotations that the Gutenberg does not. For another they include alternative translations. Some also include markups that make it easier to read online. -- ] 04:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Agreed. But the particular source I was removing was a site who provided nothing more than Gutenberg, other than google links. It had clearly been deliberately spammed all over Misplaced Pages solely for the purpose of ad revenue. If I inadvertently removed a good source while exterminating the spam, I apologize. ] 04:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

=== On a related note ===
Can you add two cents to a discussion with a user who keeps the links that three other people have taken out? It's a slow-motion thing over simply months, but he's very persistant. - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 11:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

== Selected articles on Portal:F1 ==

Hello again.

I dropped notes round a while back to those who have listed themselves at ] to ask for suggestions for selected articles on ]. There was a pretty good response, both in terms of how it might work and of articles suggested. ] came out with the most support and was brought up to ] standard after a lot of work by ] and others before going on as the F1 portal selected article a couple of weeks ago. It is now at ] as a Featured Article candidate (why not drop by and see if you can help polish it further?).

Several people who responded to the original request suggested that a monthly or bi-weekly 'Selected Article' could act as a catalyst for an improvement drive to get more articles up to a higher standard. Although it wasn't quite what I had in mind when I started, this seemed to work pretty well for the Damon Hill article, so I've drafted up a process for doing this more regularly. See ] for details. Essentially the suggestion is that we vote for an article to improve every couple of weeks and at the end of the improvement process the article goes on the portal as the new 'Selected Article'. I'd be grateful for any comments on how this might work - I'm sure some of you are more familiar with things 'Wiki' than me - as well as your votes for the next candidate (by 16 July).

You may also want to help with the article ], which was the next most popular after Damon Hill. The idea is to try and get it up to GA standard by 16 July and then put it on the portal as the 'Selected Article'. I hope you can help! ] 18:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

==Alienus history==
I'm compiling a history of Alienus' problematic interactions with other editors, primarily administrators, and I've reached March 16. After that there's a big gap in my knowledge because he dropped off my radar until June, so anything you could add would be most welcome:

* ]

--] 16:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

===Alienus arbitration===
See . --] 21:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

=== RfC ===

I believe that an RfAr would be premature at this time and would not be productive. Therefore I am asking that you allow the pending RfC to continue. ] 08:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

===Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alienus===
] has been accepted. Please place evidence at ] and proposals and comments at ]. ] 13:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.

== WP:External links ==
While cleaning some links from ], the attention of ] was attracted to a straght-forward cleanup up the guideline I had done. He did a full , and now I feel that he's only interested in a slagginG match on the talk page, complete with pointless passive agressive changes to section headers . It's possible that I'm not being 100% helpful myself, so could you review the changes I made to WP:EL as well as the discussion on the ] and tell me if I'm out of line? - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 00:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

: Your edit summary here is quite enlightening . It expresses my exact thoughts on the demotion of the word "review" from the first section of the style guide. I missed the part where you achieved consensus for the removal of the word, or "trivia" as you like to call it, from its position of the last seven months or so (i.e. since 2005). Since based on the message above, it is clear that your style guide comments and reversions reflect more a desire to edit war on behalf of another user than to contribute to improving the page, I'll point out before I go that you are now at 3 reversions. --] 00:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

:: I'd suggest you focus on the content in question, rather than on the people making the edits. This will help you avoid intentionally or unintentionally saying incivil things. ] 02:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
: I have extensively focused on the content of the style guide through long comments that have received no answer or flippant responses from you such as: ''A "unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it is of high quality" refers to a unique resource beyond what the article would have once it is of high quality.'' I have further been forced to revert massive changes in the '''meaning''' of the style guide that have been misleadingly described as corrections to sloppy editing. This has all been patiently explained with diffs on the talk page. I don't care who edits the encyclopedia. I do care that style guides, guideline or policy are not changed arbitrarily to suit the whims of individual editors. You have shown a great willingness to edit war, but have made little real effort to participate sincerely. I would therefore suggest that you focus more on the content and less on insulting joke responses such as the one above. --] 02:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
:: JJay, you have suggested that you believe the phrase "unique resource" could be reasonably interpreted as "every page on the internet." If we're going to start cataloguing "insulting joke responses" you might start there. ] 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
: I have suggested that it might be interpreted that way because of its vagueness. I have asked repeatedly for clarification. I asked for your definition and you responded with the diff above. There have been no "insulting joke responses" from me. There has been an enormous refusal from you and user:Aaron Brenneman to engage in serious discussion and build any consensus for effecting changes in style guide meaning. --] 03:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
:: What both Aaron and I have been trying to explain to you &mdash; evidently without success &mdash; is that a well-written guideline is targeted at ''reasonable editors''. No reasonable editor can or will interpret "unique resource" as "every page on the internet." A guideline that is written to soothe the troubled minds of ''unreasonable editors'' is one that is more difficult for ''reasonable editors'' to use. What I view as problematic in your edits is that you seem to be trying to answer the question "How might an unreasonable editor interpret this standard?" That is not an acceptable way to write policy. We already have ways to deal with unreasonable editors: we welcome, we explain, we discuss, and if all else fails we use dispute resolution. What we do ''not'' do is draft muddled, unclear, overly-verbose policies to anticipate their every (unreasonable) objection. ] 03:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

==AS==
When you get a chance, can you have another look at the AS article? They've been hard at work, and it has really undergone a major revamping, including deletion of massive amounts of speculation, referencing, copyediting, and a major reorganization of the article contents. ] 04:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

: Will do. Thanks! ] 02:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

==]==

Now I have to wonder why you would jump on me over the Asperger's talk and yet say nothing about the arrogant, autocratic, manipulative and downright abusive behaviors of ]?

That doesn't seem fair or right.

Admin or not, nobody should be presuming the degree of personal authority and control over any article that ]has. --] 23:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

::I think that if you actually read the discussions on the talk page you will discover that ] is not being "civil" by any standards you care to name.

::But if you do not agree I am happy to take this RFA --] 00:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Nandesuka, it is my understanding from ] that certain messages and templates should not be removed from talk pages. If this is correct, can you please have a look at I'm concerned that the trend will continue. Thanks, ] 00:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Did I hear my name ? :-)

Just to let you know that AS has moved to FARC.

] 21:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

==Wrong way elections==

dear Nandesuka.
I see you deleted my article "wrong way elections" (without notifying me of course,
common courtesy being beyond wikipedia's ken apparently).

Can you send me via email, the most recent version of the thing you deleted?
Allegedly Misplaced Pages still has it, since they have an "undeletion policy" which
however, I am unable to penetrate the mysteries of.

Warren D Smith: wds at math.temple.edu

Thanks a bunch.

PS. You made the wrong decision too. My rough
estimation is this deletion decision cost,
in expectation, 1000 lives; although I might be off by a factor of 100,
I doubt I am off by more. I hope you employed approprate gravity
in making the decision, therefore. (As opposed to the bulk of my critics, who
gave no explicit objections whatever... and regard any attempted measurement of the
importance of the article, such as "1000 lives" as quote "arrogant"... but unfortunately
estimates of this sort are well known in the voting methods field... which was
difficult for my critics to tell, since, as far as I could tell, none of
them knew anything about voting... which in no way prevented them
from somehow judging that the article was "original research".. although none of them were
capable of telling what original research in this area even is... but that was ok since they
did not try... and wikipedia nowhere defines what it is anyhow... far as I can see)

Bye.

: Warren,
: If you wish to post material that does not conform with Misplaced Pages's content policies, such as ], then I encourage you to get your own web site. Good day. ] 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

==Wanton reverts without cause or merit==

It has come to my attention that since you got wind of the page, all you've done is made wanton edits and reverts. Your blatantly ridiculous edit of this morning was uncalled for, against Wiki policy and clearly without merit. An admin should be unbiased and not be swayed by any consensus displayed by a particularly opposing parties. I spent a considerable amount of time this morning doing lengthy research on Derek Smart and posted my findings in order to alleviate the wanton revert war that has been going on between his supporters and detractors alike and which started on the Usenet over a decade ago. Without reading or vetting the material, you reverted it to an edit (which was erroneous and editorial) made by an anon member. At some point, this Derek Smart page is going to end up in arbitration and if you continue, you are not only going to be in the middle of it, but you are also likely to lose (by not being voted
again) your admin rights which you seem to be abusing with wanton disregard for Wiki policies. See my please. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

: I believe you are referring to this revert, , which would be where I reverted your edit where you put this absolutely unacceptable text in a Misplaced Pages article:
<blockquote>. Particularly unflattering, unsubstantiated and potentially and materials] See </blockquote>
: There is so much wrong with your edits that I don't know where to begin. But I'll try. First off, linking an article to a talk page is bad form. Second, inserting your own personal opinion into an article is ]. If you wish to avoid having your edits reverted, then please ''improve the quality of your work'', because this particular edit is nowhere near Misplaced Pages standards. ] 13:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
::Fine, I can accept the 'personal opinion' aspect, but by the same token, you are clearly doing whole reverts, instead of editing out conflicting materials. That is also poor form. All I'm trying to do is keep this page NPOV while others are simply trying to do the same thing they have been doing on the Usenet for many years. That being, character assassinating Smart.
:: I also didn't realize the link to a talk page was considered bad form. Nevertheless, it is not against Wiki guidelines. If it is, please point me to the Wiki rules where it is cited as being unacceptable.
:: If you wanted to be neutral admin, you would not make whole reverts because that too is considered bad form and just plain lazy. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

===Original Research===

Do you know what Original Research is and means? I don't think so. Either that or you're misusing the terminology. My edit of a few days ago on the page was not original research (despite the error in my comments and which I couldn't change without being 3RR trapped). All I did was posted factual date from reliable sources. Yet, you saw it fit to do a whole revert. Then when I put it back in, I got trapped in the 3RR rule which I'm sure you and your friends were quite happy to report and get me banned for 24hrs.

This - again - is one of the reasons why Wiki is an unmitigated failure and seemingly nothing more than a glorified chat room / forum when heated items are the issue at hand. NONE of you folks have the skills nor
the training to negotiate - nor understand fully - the rules of the Wiki. Thats what happens when a bunch of unprofessional and 'common' folk are put in positions of authority and to vet stuff that they simply have no knowledge of. A system like that has proven time and time again to be a social failure.

: The answer to your question is "Yes, I know what original research is and means." You, however, seem to have not read ], which spells out in exactly detail exactly what original research is and means, in the context of Misplaced Pages. As for your personal feelings regarding whether Misplaced Pages is a success or failure, if you do not like the rules under which Misplaced Pages operates, then I encourage you to either try to change them through discussion on the appropriate policy pages, or start a blog where you will be able to set your own rules. Good day. ] 14:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


{| style="border-left: 3px solid black; padding-left: 1em;"
== Reverts on ] ==
|{{null}}
; Why have I received this message?
: All administrators are receiving it.


; What prompted you to send this message?
A full refutation of the source was given on the talk page before I saw your second revert. - ] (] • ]) 12:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
: Recently, several Misplaced Pages admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were ]. 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 ] after losing control of their account.
: I don't see a refutation of the source on the talk page. I see you saying that you personally believe the authors were making the claim up. Are you a reliable, published source? ] 12:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


; What do I need to do?
== Original research ==
: 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)?
Hi there, can I solicit your opinion on "original research"?
: You can find out more about 2FA at ].
|}</div>
</div>


<small>This message was sent to all administrators following a ]. Thank you for your attention. For the ], ] 02:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)</small>
In the article on ], an animal rights campaigner, a sentence used to say "Described as 'not what some would regard as a typical animal rights campaigner,' Langley is herself a former animal researcher who decided she could not justify the experiments her employment required her to conduct."
<!-- Template:ArbCom 2019 special circular -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Cameron11598@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Bradv/Adminlist-mms&oldid=891852932 -->


== Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular) ==
My reasoning is that this invites the reader to make inferences about "typical animal rights campaigners", SV's reasoning is that I am the one making the original research, drawing inferences. The train wreck is on the article talk page.


ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Thanks. ] 14:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


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 ] to "have strong passwords and ]." We have ] our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, ] 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.
== Wizard article. ==


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.
Since you were the one who added the cleanup tag, I figured I might as well mention this over here, since I think we need a third opinion. Apologies about spamming your talk page.


For the Arbitration Committee, -] 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)</small>
] has done some good work trying to cleanup the ] article. I noticed when he moved some items from the Wizard article over to ], which I watch. That said, there seems to be a fundamental disagreement between us on where the Wizard article should go. As a rough summary... he has tried to move the article away from "la la magic la," which I heartily approve of. That said, he seems to be trying to remove almost all reference to magic inside the article. My understanding is that historically, wizards were associated with any unusual knowledge or skill (both magical and mundane); furthermore, "wizard" (unadorned by modifier such as "computer") is modernly associated with straight-up magic use. While I appreciate trying to emphasize that wizards weren't just magic, he seems to be implying that they were ''never'' magic (and if they were, should be moved to the Magician article or the like).
<!-- Template:ArbCom 2019 special circular correction -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Cameron11598@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Bradv/Adminlist-mms&oldid=891852932 -->


== Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity ==
There are some further debates over style which are probably not as important; I feel that is considerably better than Jc's current one.


If you have time, your input would be appreciated. ] 05:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


]
== Encyclopedia Dramatiac talk pages ==
Established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to activity within the next month.


Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at ]. 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 ].
I think the talk pages should stay. ] 06:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:Me too. ] 08:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Why? ] 13:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your past contributions to the project. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->—&thinsp;] 00:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
== Deletion review ==
==Encyclopedia Dramatica on deletion review==
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. ] 08:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
: Thanks for notifying me. I gave my reasons in the close, but I'll keep an eye on the DRV. ] 13:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


== Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity ==
Hello Nandesuka, could you ] as well? Thanks. ''(]])'' 12:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
: Done. Thanks for the reminder. ] 13:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::Cheers Nandesuka, . :-) ''(]])'' 14:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


:If you're going to salt the page, please make sure it's at the correct spelling, and please make sure the template points to the correct AfD debate. thx. ] 14:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::Given the history or recreation at different spellings it's good that they are all being deleted and salted.
::Nandesuka, your handling of this whole affair is commendable and much appreciated. Thanks. ''(]])'' 16:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Hello again Nandesuka. Sorry to bother you once more and I'm not sure if it matters but three hours after the close of ED's AfD someone decided to begin ] of the article in Misplaced Pages namespace. I've tagged with {{]}}. Maybe you could take a peek at it and either concur with the db or if not remove the tag. Thanks. ''(]])'' 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


]
== For doing a great job sorting through that AfD ==
Established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to activity within the next several days.


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 ]. 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 ].
{{award2|image=Barnstar2.png|size=100px|topic=The Editor's Barnstar|text=For a very fine choice on the Afd of ED. It must not have been eay. Great Job <font color="green">]</font> <font color="red"><sup>]</sup></font> 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC) }}
:I second the awarding of this barnstar. ''(]])'' 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your past contributions to the project. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->—&thinsp;] 00:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
== read wiki policies ==


== Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity ==
]
Established ] 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 have been removed.


Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at ].
nandeska, you'll have to read wiki policies. i have committed no vandalism. maybe consider taking some time to cool off and read how wiki works. thanks!


Thank you for your past contributions to the project. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->— ] <sup>]</sup> 00:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
] 18:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
==Orphaned non-free image File:Blastoff.png==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]).


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 18:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
== Question regarding your closing of the AfD for Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination) ==
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ] 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.
Just a question/comment for you, and please don't think I am trying to get you to reverse your decision, but it appears that you closed the AfD a bit early. The original reason was stated at 01:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC), and you closed it at 05:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC). Accoridng to ], the wait should be 5 days after a rough consensus. You closed it 4 days, 4 hours and 2 minutes into the AfD. I don't know if you realized it or not, but I wanted to bring it to your attention. I respect you as a fellow editor and as a SysOp, which is why I am coming to you first before I bring this up in the Deletion Review of the ED article. Thanks for your time.--] 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:I would like to be able to participate in the ], but I would also like to give you a chance to reply to what I wrote above. I'm going to wait 24 hours from my original comment before I write up my comment in the ED Dr, to give you time to respond to my concern if you want too. Thanks for your time.--] 03:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:: I've said everything I care to say in the close. Please go ahead and participate however you wish. Regards, ] 11:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


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.
==]==
Please take a look - also at talk. thanks much! ]<sup>]</sup> 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC) <!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 21:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:26, 17 May 2024

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Nandesuka has not edited Misplaced Pages since 14 January 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Please create sections below

Thanks.

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy

Please reduce the protection on this article back down to semi-protected status. Misplaced Pages users should not capitulate to the single purpose accounts and POV pushers trying to say "it's biased it's biased" when it reflects the current weight of the subject across all reliable sources. It also only recently was unprotected and this just puts it into the same stagnation it was before. There was no call for full protection this time and one extremely obvious SPA's actions should not lock everything down, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:GS/GG

For blocks placed through general sanctions, you should use this template in future. RGloucester — ☎ 03:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't feel like making a new thread. How does this guy fare in these matters?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like mostly reasonable editing to me. Is there a specific series of edits you want to point out?? Nandesuka (talk) 12:28, 28 October 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 Misplaced Pages 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) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated , please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. WJBscribe (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:RESYSOP

As a recently returned sysop (per Special:PermaLink/733330820 at WP:BN), welcome back to the admin corps. We always need help at WP:ADMINBACKLOG if there are any areas you can help with that would be most welcomed. Happy mopping! — xaosflux 01:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Nandesuka. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Nandesuka.

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, Nandesuka. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Proposed deletion of David Rolfe (programmer)

The article David Rolfe (programmer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not the subject of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) No in-depth hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and no suitable redirect targets (isn't known as an employee or designer of a single company/game).

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. czar 08:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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 Misplaced Pages, 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

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Misplaced Pages seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of David Rolfe (programmer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Rolfe (programmer) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Rolfe (programmer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. czar 07:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Misplaced Pages administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

List of pregnancy-related topics listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of pregnancy-related topics. Since you had some involvement with the List of pregnancy-related topics redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nandesuka. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Nomination of List of magicians in fantasy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of magicians in fantasy is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of magicians in fantasy until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia 19:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nandesuka. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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) 18:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

Why have I received this message?
All administrators are receiving it.
What prompted you to send this message?
Recently, several Misplaced Pages 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.
  1. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
  2. Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
  3. 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 02:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

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

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon 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 Misplaced Pages: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 00:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon 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 several days.

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 Misplaced Pages: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 00:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon 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 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 00:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Blastoff.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Blastoff.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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) 18:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Susie Tallman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Susie Tallman is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Susie Tallman 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.

Edwardx (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Categories: