User talk:CALR

This user may have left Wikipedia. CALR has not edited Wikipedia since December 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

I didn't know if I'm at the right place to write you ... sorry. I wish just know if you're the author of the article about "halloysite" ? Domalius is my great great great great father and I didn't know he gaves the name of uor village at a mineral. What are your source ? Where did you see this information ? I wish to know how or where he founds the halloysite.

Thanks (and sorry for my english ... I'm belgian ...)

Camille

/archive1 /archive2

I'd like to draw your attention to User:Smatprt who, in my opinion, has been intent on rewriting the Shakespeare Authorship article for the last year to promote his view that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. I am only interested in article balance. See here for the list of his edits [[1]] (Felsommerfeld 16:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your response. You MUST read the Life and Times of BenJonson (a Wiki editor here) which is on the Shakespeare Authorship discussion page. It should tell you everything you need to know. (Felsommerfeld 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'd better point out that it details the evidence for a deceitful sockpuppetry. (Felsommerfeld 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. Sorry you've been dragged into this. It's true, I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt 01:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felsommerfeld's accusations of sockpuppetry have gone way too far. He know, as do the actual long-time editors of this article (of which he is not), that Ben Jonson and I are two very different individuals that happen to see eye to eye on the authorship issue. Feel free to investigate, research or whatever you need to do to confirm this. For starters, BenJonson lives fulltime on the east coast, I on the west. Check our IP's or whatever (I am not that technical to know how you check, but I know you can and immediately clear this up and stop Felsommerfeld from his one-man war.Smatprt 01:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smatprt is smart enough to use different IP addresses. Please check out the Shakespeare Authorship discussion about user BenJonson and read the evidence in detail. You can form your own opinion. (Felsommerfeld 01:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Soo - I am glad I am not the only one accused of being a Sockpuppet! Does that make me part of some club? (lol). Seriously, are there any technical wizards or Wiki gurus that can clear this accusation, left on dozens of administrators mailboxes by Felsommerfeld? Felsommerfeld and Hangemhigh are working in tandem to make deletions of long-standing, properly referenced material because it does not conform to their point of view. They have been quoted as saying the article should not even exist and because they can't delete the entire article, they are deleting Oxfordian and Anti-Stratfordian material and the references that support it. There was a consensus version in place since last November and for the last 8 months the page has been relatively quiet. In the last 5 days they have deleted masses of information and are preventing reverts by tag-teaming. As the only regular Oxfordian editor and do what I can but have been sucked into several edit wars and have even been banned twice, both of which I regret, and both times when Stratfordain editors attempted to delete information. So, what to do?Smatprt 03:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - I am continuing the discussion above about the current collapse of the Shakespeare Authorship Question article - I just posted the statement below on the Shakespeare project page as advised by another administrator with an "A". I am a long-time editor of this page and am coming under attack from 2 "new" editors and one sockpuppet (now banned). They have deleted material, section by section and my attempts to revert have not been successful. I tried posting information section by section, as advised by another administrator, asking for discussion, but none came. Instead, these ridiculous accusations came and reverts were made. My post below will tell my side of the story. I am asking that you revert the page to the version that was in place from Nov 06 to June 07 (before these recent wars started) and then lock the article for a cooldown period. Here is my posting on the project page:

"Mass deletions of material from Shakespeare Authorship Question article"

As a regular editor to all things Shakespeare, you all know (and some are sickened by) my interest in the Authorship Question (laugh). My last (and first) year here at WP has been quite a learning experience, and believe it or not, the FA process for the WS page was quite an eye-opener. But many of us learned a few more things about WP, so even though the article did not achieve FA, I think one day it will and in the process has already (and will further) become a great article.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Shakespeare Authorship article itself. For the past 8 or 9 months, the page has been relatively stable. In the last week, 2 or 3 new editors (and one unfortunate sockpuppet which has already been banned) have made mass deletions of referenced material. No big surprise - all the deletions were Oxfordian or anti-stratfordian. Now this is the same page where most of the mainstream editors from the WS FA process said that the authorship information should go. Now,... that info is being deleted, section by section. Unbelievably, in their haste, these editors have even cut the stratfordain disclaimer (that academics dismiss all the alternative candidates) that I had grown to accept.

Anyhow, because this is the WikiPjoject Shakespeare, I have been advised, and had already been considering, requesting that the editors of this page take a look at what is going on. Because I have resisted their deletions, they are now waging a campaign to have me declared some sort of SockPuppet for long-time editor BenJonson, even though I don't think he's made an edit for weeks or months. This accusation has been plastered on at least a dozen admin mailboxes - none of which, so far, has fallen for their. I know the truth, I detest sockkpuppets, and I know that some smart administrator will be able to prove their accusations groundless. In the meantime, however, the page is the one that will suffer.

In spite of the fact that most of you are staunch stratfordians, I have also found you to be reasonable and have a sense of fair play. I ask that you look at the talk page and bring some cool heads into the discussion. I ask that you look at the article and its format for the last 8 months, then look at the edits over the last few days. I realize some of you personally disagree with the content, but if we are attempting to make these articles better, then the kind of attitudes and accusations and mass deletions going on on any of these pages should be a cause of concern. Thanks for hearing me out.Smatprt 01:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you can find time to read the testimony of many aggrieved editors on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Also here on the Fringe Theories board. [[2]] What is the procedure for completely banning Smatprt? (Felsommerfeld 13:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello,

I am currently in a discussion on the Kyiv/Kiev naming page about moving the page to Kyiv, but although there is some opposition, the only argument now against moving it is that there was a poll about a move, and there was no consensus.

However, the poll which I had requested was closed in less that 15 hours, and no reason was given for that closure. Please don’t misunderstand me – I do not mean to insult anybody, nor do I take this as a slight or personal offence in any way, because I understand how much work it takes to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. Administrators have many things to do, so they cannot spend hours discussing one poll.

What is disconcerting, however, is that I was also told by an editor who disagrees with me: “You can try starting a new poll but it sure would be closed even sooner than the last one.”

I would really appreciate any suggestions you may have.

I have searched through the Wikipedia guidelines, but I haven’t found any information about poll guidelines. I want to open another poll/request to move. I would love to hear your opinion in this poll.

I do have a request, however. Please let this poll run for five days. There are many people who are very busy in the “real world” who would like to contribute. This is a question of a new nation’s capital city of a relatively new independent state, and it is important to very many people. The discussion on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming is roughly 50 thousand words long.

My personal arguments for the move are summarized in point 24, the topic at hand, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming#The_Topic_at_Hand, however, as I mentioned, there are very many people who have contributed to this discussion.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,

Horlo 03:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannosaurus in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Tyrannosaurus in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrannosaurus in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Tyrannosaurus in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The great and mysterious Bearian has spoken at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrannosaurus in popular culture. :-) I think you shopuld note the Heymann standard in the comments, as I use it too often. Bearian 01:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calr. I did ultimately remove this one. I noticed you aren't editing heavily and the article itself had not seen work. The lack of publication info is the first thing that needs addressing, if you do go back to it. I felt bad considering "It's not reasonable in the long term to expect editors like me to monitor an article like this for the rest of eternity." A frustration that hangs over every editor—all that we do can be undone. Anyway, hang in there, as someone else noted after your last comment. Marskell 11:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calr,

How are you doing? I've been working on Wikipedia's Massospondylus article for a while now, and I'm hoping to get this article up to GA status eventually. Since you worked on this article back in the day, I thought you might have ideas for improvement or suggestions for expansion. Any ideas are appreciated. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 10:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. ;o)

Lots of photos available at the Boardgamegeek - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/images/game/320. IainCheyne (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. List of English words containing Q not followed by U was among the leading votegetters at WP:LOTD and will be recognized as list of the day twice. If you have any date preferences get back to me by the 26th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BMH will love you for yours. +sj + 04:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 December 2006, you reverted Shrink fit to a redirect to Shrinkwrap. As a mechanic, I can assure you that the two terms are not equivalent. Peedarp007's edit was substantially correct. Please justify or undo your reversion.Cstaffa (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know after seeing the red link on the Countdown article, I created this page. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CALR,

Just popping by to say hi, and inviting you to re-join Wikipedia: WikiProject Dinosaurs. You haven't participated over there for a very long time, and you're missed. We could use your input and ingenuity. Hope all is well with you. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit here much any more, although I'm still a frequent reader. Nice to know I'm missed, I might get back into it over the summer :) calr (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CALR! It'd be great to have you editing. However, whether you edit or not, you should know that you are always welcome, you definitely have been missed, and that you are always welcome to drop by and tell us how you're doing.

Your Missing Dinosaurs List, which was a brilliant idea, eventually became WP:DABS, a list of all Wikipedia dinosaur articles ordered by size (and maintained by a bot!). We've made so much progress through the years, and a lot of it has to do with your early prep work on the project.

Take care, and do drop by the project someday soon. We'd love to hear from you and hear how you're doing. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mathmo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathmo. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mrh30 (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Gopal81^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Braggadocianism, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Braggadocianism is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Braggadocianism, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a kneejerk reaction to naughty words but rather a detailed review of a few sources (including ones you didn't provide) and a decision that the name was either an outdated regional term and/or it applied to all the species within the genus. If you check Lepidochelys, I actually put in the name in the etymology section for the turtles of the entire genus as a somewhat of a historical footnote, although I'm still trying to find the actual paper where Lacepede states the name. All in historical context of course since the name is now rarely used (if ever). Took a cue from the American alligator article that only listed "American alligator" or "gator" as its common names in the lead and not the many other old-and-new names it's been called over the years. Shrumster (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, was a bit ooc for me to just rely on the stock edit summary for that one. Yup, will redirect the redirect to the Ridley genus article. I added the name in the etymology section of the Kemp's article anyway since the source was mostly for L. kempii. Shrumster (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CALR! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 534 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Panupol Sujjayakorn - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks

This user helped promote Perfect Dark to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Perfect Dark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Teancum (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the Cambridge meetup on Sunday, not least for the chance to meet User:Sadads who while in the UK is looking for Campus Ambassadors. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charlie,

I noticed that you did some good work on List of English words containing Q not followed by U in order to get it up to featured list status. I am currently endeavouring to get the list up on the main page in the "Today's Featured List" section and certain concerns have been raised about the nomination here. Any help you would be willing to provide in addressing these concerns would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Since you are the main author of that list, I wanted to let you know that I reviewed its TFL submission here. Maybe you could have a look at it and address those (minor) issues to make it ready for the main page. bamse (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an open WP:SPI case looking at sockpuppet editing primarily on the Johann Hari/ Talk page. As you edited the Johann Hari/Talk page between 2004 and 2011, your input is welcomed.

Dear CALR,

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

So a few things about the interviews:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk)23:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of English words containing Q not followed by U know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on March 19, 2012. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/March 19, 2012. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some exceptions to the rule in the English language that the letter q is followed by the letter u. The majority of these exceptions are anglicised from Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew, Inuktitut, or other languages which do not use the English alphabet, with q representing a sound not found in English. For example, in the Chinese pinyin alphabet, qi is pronounced /tʃi/ by an English speaker, as pinyin uses ‹q› to represent the sound [tɕʰ], which is approximated as [tʃ] in English. In other examples, q represents [q] in standard Arabic, such as in qat and faqir. In Arabic, the letter ق, traditionally romanised as q, is quite distinct from ك, traditionally romanised as k; for example, قلب /qalb/ means "heart" but كلب /kalb/ means "dog". However, alternative spellings are sometimes accepted which use k (or sometimes c) in place of q. Qwerty, one of the few native English words with q and no u in current usage, is derived from the first six letters of a standard keyboard layout (pictured). |link=List of English words containing Q not followed by U

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited World English-Language Scrabble Players' Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TWL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unix file system. Since you had some involvement with the Unix file system redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Clabbers example board.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CALR,

Maproom at the Teahouse suggested to contact you about this redirect.

I have posted a section about this on the Talk page.

What are your thoughts? Could the expression popular science be applied in a broader sense? Or could a distinction be made?

I was actually researching vulgarisation as a possible ressource to explain how to simplify any technical subject but did not find what I was looking for on the current page.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vulgarisation. Since you had some involvement with the Vulgarisation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —teb728 t c 23:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pedanticalness. Since you had some involvement with the Pedanticalness redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CALR.

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)[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

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

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World Scrabble Championship 2007 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Scrabble Championship 2007 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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

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

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Obituaries

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

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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 Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Talk 00:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Nastaliq.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cinq. Since you had some involvement with the Cinq redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Puddlemore United. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 1#Pride of Portree and other quidditch teams until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CALR. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Zero shot knowledge, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Zero shot knowledge, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Curriculum learning. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and those sources need to be reliable and independent of the subject. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Curriculum learning instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion.

If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

This draft is either essentially the same as the article with the same name, or a subset of the article with the same name. The draft will be replaced by a redirect from draft space to the article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Curriculum learning and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CALR! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kolmogorov–Arnold Network, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolmogorov–Arnold Network until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CALR. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bayesian persuasion, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]