User talk:Karl Dickman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive[edit]

Archive Start End
Archive 1 2004-05-23 2004-12-31
Archive 2 2005-01-01 2005-06-23
Archive 3 2005-06-23 2005-09-05
Archive 4 2005-09-05 2005-12-01
Archive 5 2005-12-01 2005-02-10
Archive 6 2006-02-10 2006-04-14
Archive 7 2006-04-14 2006-07-09
Archive 8 2006-07-09 2006-11-15
Archive 9 2006-11-15 2007-01-10
Archive 10 2007-01-10 2008-03-30
Archive 11 2008-03-30 2015-09-08
Current Current discussion

Thank you[edit]

On Lutrinae ... (",) 108.195.138.129 (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Obsidian Portal[edit]

Hi, did you recently delete an 'Obsidian Portal' (the RPG campaign management tool) page entry? if so can you please explain why?

Cheers

Nick

NikMak71 (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)NikMak71

It was a very short article that did not credibly establish the importance or significance of its subject. Karl Dickman talk 09:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, it was my first article as a wikipeia editor, and was up in place for all of 3 minutes by my reckoning. I am hoping to attract two three other people along to edit it and create a more detailed entry for it. Do you mind re-instating what you deleted please? Give us a bit more time flesh out the article and, hopefully, you will eventually see that it is a topic worthy of an entry.

Cheers

Nick

NikMak71 NikMak71 (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I recommend working on it at Draft:Obsidian Portal and submitting it to Articles for Creation. Karl Dickman talk 09:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ok, will do. thanks for the advice

Nick

NikMak71 (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eduard Riecke, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wilhelm Weber and Friedrich Kohlrausch (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) 14:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Chris Cuomo[edit]

Hello Karl,

Thanks for your input. I thought I addressed each reviser in a proper BRD cycle, but I'm a bit of a newbie here.

You stated that "insulting or inflammatory material" is a violation and referred me to the BLP policy. Interestingly, there is no reference to "insulting or inflammatory material" in the BLP policy. As far as the added material, it is simply a reference to a parody award promoted by the Blaze network (with an audience of over 10 million). It is simply a reference to pertinent pop culture material, not meant to be directly offensive. Consider the volume of "insulting or inflammatory material" produced by "Saturday Night Live", "Weird Al Yankovic" and other parody based humor venues. Are there no references in any BLP to their being the subject of parody? Is it strictly verboten or just entirely subjective?

fg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxgloves (talkcontribs) 08:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Foxgloves: Please discuss this at Talk:Chris Cuomo. Many different editors have reverted this addition, so it clearly needs more consenusus before being included. Karl Dickman talk 18:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent administrative action[edit]

I really think you should undo your recent blocks of User:Iryna Harpy and User:Clpo13 as it's clear their reverts were exempt from the 3RR restriction as they were reverting an obvious sock puppet of a indef banned user with a long history of abuse. [1] (otherwise you might as well block yourself for edit-warring with this guy) See [2].

Also, in order not to incentivize indef banned user to sock puppet and edit war, you probably should change the protection level of the Self-arrest article and self revert your last edit (or let someone else revert it), although I am completely at a loss as to why you first reverted, then protected the page [3], since that would technically make you involved in the edit war. Thanks. Volunteer Marek  13:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The anon's behavior at Holocaust in Poland made me feel that I needed to track down his other edits and deal with any other problems he may have caused. Because of his IP hopping, this required opening a lot of browser tabs to review all of his possible contributions. Unfortunately I had the protection dialog for self-arrest in the queue after the diff for the last change made to the page. My apologies. Karl Dickman talk 16:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm failing to understand how this edit could have happened as a result of anything other than a decision to revert the content back to the IP's edit. Please will you clarify? Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What the heck are you doing here? Please unblock these editors. --NeilN talk to me 14:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

And why did your add template protection to a non-template page? [4] --NeilN talk to me 15:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this, after a five year absence from adminning, you return and soon thereafter block two veteran editors and involve yourself in an edit war (as Burninthruthesky notes), siding with a LTA, and try to fully protect the article. You are aware that the IP is a LTA [5] and still don't reverse your blocks. Please explain what you were thinking. --NeilN talk to me 15:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would describe blocking all parties to an editor war, and then lengthening the block of the anonymous user for egregious harassment, as taking sides. Karl Dickman talk 15:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Please explain why you did not reverse your blocks after becoming aware the IP was a LTA. --NeilN talk to me 15:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The diffs on Self-arrest and Dixie indicate a legitimate content dispute. No such user wrote on Talk:Self-arrest, "His abusiveness notwithstanding, the version as edited by IP is clearly superior to the one half of Wikipedia reverts to. WP:IAR and all that. To wit, it conforms to WP:REFERS, WP:GENDER, WP:NOTAMANUAL, WP:SELFREF, WP:WEASEL -- if I get the alphabet soup right -- unlike the old one. No such user (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)" If the anon's edits were more clearly of poor quality, I would have considered this vandalism reversion instead of an edit war.
This is characteristic of this anon. From the LTA page: "The principal problem with this case is that most edits made by this user are good-faith edits that are often supported by editors when looked at on their individual merits" Similarly, The instructions on the LTA page for this anon recommend "Report excessive verbal abuse," in contrast to many LTA pages that recommend blocking on sight, nor does it recommend blindly reverting all edits. Consult the block log. I blocked this anon in all its incarnations, first for 3RR, then lengthening the block for harassment.
From WP:3RR: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Again, if the edits being made were more clearly of poor quality I would have banned only the anon rather than all parties. Karl Dickman talk 16:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:3RRNO: "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR... Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." If you block editors again for reverting socks I would not be surprised if there were calls to desysop you. --NeilN talk to me 16:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I stand by my assessment that Clpo13 and and Iryna Harpy were edit warring even if they did not commit a technical violation of the 3RR. 3RRNO is not a get-out-of-jail free card for edit warring over a legitimate content dispute.
Shutting down an edit war and calling for discussion on the talk page (see here, here, and here) creates a "paper trail" that can be used to document consensus in the event of a future edit war. Karl Dickman talk 16:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You shut down an edit war very poorly and blocked editors don't get to partake in content disputes. Not only that, you used your admin tools to protect your preferred version. I suggest a reread of WP:INVOLVED is in order. If you think a blocked IP's edits are worth saving, then act as a regular editor. Example (involving the same IP): [6], [7] --NeilN talk to me 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
There is never a way to shut down an edit war without offending everyone involved.
I do not have a preferred version of the article. As I wrote on Talk:Self-arrest, "I have already had to block three editors and protect the page to stop the edit war in progress here. The blocks will expire in 24 hours, except for the anon who has been blocked for a week for harassment. When the blocks expire, please use this talk page to come to a consensus about how the article should be written." The anon's edits may or may not be worth saving, but they are worth discussing, and are being discussed as we speak. Karl Dickman talk 17:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, it's obvious you think you've done nothing wrong. Fair enough. However, as I said above, similar actions in the future may raise questions about your adminship. --NeilN talk to me 17:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Karl, I've unblocked Iryna Harpy. As Neil and VM say, there's an exemption from 3RR for reverting a banned editor. This whole "best known for IP" banning has evolved into something dysfunctional and dumb, but the solution can't be to block editors following the guideline/policy. I also reduced the page protection to semi; we don't really use template protection on anything but templates. When the template editor right was created, there was a fear that it was going to morph into a kind of "senior editor" badge for articles too, so we need to be vigilant about not letting that happen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • A couple of other matters for your consideration: generally speaking, full protection is an alternative solution to blocking and when you opt for one, it usually renders the other option unnecessary. There is almost never a need to block an edit warrior if you full protect. It comes across as punitive and only serves to impede discussion rather than protect the project. Secondly, Clpo13 and Iryna Harpy are both established editors in good standing who have contributed a combined tens of thousands of edits over several years—and they both had clean block logs. A clean block log is a source of pride for most of us sullying one can severely demoralize our community members. Blocking an established editor in good standing with a clean block log is not something that should ever be done lightly, period. People make mistakes but a clean block log is something that can never be recovered. In many cases (at least when edit wars are concerned), we opt for warnings or page protection rather than take such a drastic step over something that is usually quite petty. I'm not saying that users with clean block logs get a free pass, I'm just saying, consider if such a block is truly necessary for the protection of the project before nuking someone's clean block log. Full protection is usually a viable alternative solution and in many cases is preferable. Look, it's hard to ignore the fact that you have not been active in blocking in nearly a decade and have now issued these very questionable blocks. Wikipedia is a different place then it was when you were previously active in the mid 2000s. User activity is no longer growing, it is declining, and our human resources are more valuable than ever. Our job is to protect the project with our additional tools, not to needlessly antagonize the regulars. Swarm 17:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    This makes sense. I've already apologized to both blocked users. Karl Dickman talk 17:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Really? I only see this. Where is there any apology, or admission this block was directly contrary to policy?

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule.

— WP:EVADE
I don't see any satisfactory response to these questions. Burninthruthesky (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)[.]" Karl Dickman talk 19:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that edits "must be reverted". Policy says that users are free to make such reverts. Burninthruthesky (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You said above you have "already apologized" to both users. I ask one last time, where did you apologize. If you did not apologize, please strike your false comment. Burninthruthesky (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

See above. Karl Dickman talk 20:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Where specifically? Burninthruthesky (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Their respective user talk pages. Karl Dickman talk 20:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You'll have to excuse me if I appear to be missing something, Karl Dickman, but the only missive you've left on my talk page is the block... and, yes, Swarm is absolutely correct about there being a sense of pride in having a clean block log. Thank you so much for the blot on my record (the log being something which many users, including myself, use to check whether other editors have fallen afoul of policy on particularly controversial articles within the scope of AR sanctions when evaluating the latest outbreaks of edit warring).
I'm not going to clutter this section with diffs unless you want to see the 'trail' of abusive, expletive-riddled comments left by the IP hopper on every editor who reverted the user's content changes talk page (and the ES to boot), but I would like to point out that I stopped reverting after my second reversion on the "Self-arrest" article in order to report the IP on the 3R board, and had no intention of implicating myself. In the interim, the IP was identified as being a particularly malicious user and was acting up at full throttle, drawing in more and more editors and escalating the level of abuse against them. Whilst, in normal circumstances, I don't simply revert everything without evaluating the content changes, having had to clean up after POV warriors and vandals after others have made further changes, I preferred to return to the trail in order to establish whether there were quality changes made this morning when I logged in. While, personally, I don't consider it desirable to simply revert, there are dire, speedy circumstances under which it is logical to revert everything: it can be revisited once activity has stopped.
As for your multiple block, please take a look through the archives of the 3R noticeboard and tell me how many parallel actions you can find by other sysops and editors authorised to issue blocks... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for offering diffs, though I've already seen most of them. The anon's harassment on your talk page was the deciding factor in lengthening his block.
It appears I was mistaken when I said I apologized on your talk page. I'm sorry I escalated to a block. Karl Dickman talk 22:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I fully understand that it was all done in haste. I guess there's been a lesson in it for all of us. The outstanding moral I'm taking away is not to take on abusive editors writing nasties on other editor's talk pages when I'm supposed to be logging off for the day to make the evening meal. Hungry, chores to do, and a full day of taxing what little is left of my brain on Wikipedia is probably not likely to make for a good combination. Well, I'm straight back on the horse. Yes, I admit it, I've taken the Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test... and I'm not proud of my score. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The lesson you should have taken is not to revert for no reason, not to stalk someone's edits and revert them just for the purpose of provoking them, not to harass them by repeatedly templating their talk pages, not to make false claims such as "I stopped reverting after my second reversion", not to leave childishly dishonest messages like this one, and not to force articles into a state where they violate the core policies of the encyclopaedia. You obviously haven't got a clue how disruptive you were being and you absolutely deserved to be blocked for your infantile behaviour. 186.9.132.15 (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Another block[edit]

This was a good block (and I noticed it as I previously warned the user) but mobile users do get new message indicators when using Wikipedia. --NeilN talk to me 20:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess I should take your word for it, but I edit on mobile frequently and have never received messages except in the desktop edition, even when I'm sure I should have received them. Otherwise I would have definitely left a warning, as most vandals desist long before it reaches the block stage. Karl Dickman talk 20:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a bell icon in the top right corner. And if you patrol AIV regularly, you'll see that enough people ignore warnings. --NeilN talk to me 20:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I see the confusion. By mobile I meant the Android app. Just checked: no notification of your 20:08 message even though the desktop gave me a notice. Karl Dickman talk 20:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, is the Android app you're using from the WMF? --NeilN talk to me 20:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is [8]. Karl Dickman talk 20:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The tags are "Mobile App Edit" for the Android app and "Mobile Web Edit" from a mobile browser. Mobile App Edit vandals may not receive any block warnings regardless of what is put on their talk page. Karl Dickman talk 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The mobile site does notify users with a bell icon, so if you see "mobile web edit" you can assume that they've been notified. Swarm 21:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Video links[edit]

These videos ARE taken in Jeremy's house, got it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox_0l48TREk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMpFZ-OGP7I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRq4lQwRteM 21:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Rowland (talkcontribs)

This is David Beals, another LTA. --NeilN talk to me 23:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Anything but Conservative[edit]

I haven't removed content. I have moved sections. I am performing clean up and restructuring the content but nothing is removed. 188.166.43.71 (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Will put edit summaries from now on so it is clear that nothing is being removed. Just restructured. 188.166.43.71 (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hiroyuki Nishimura[edit]

When you protected the article, you lowered User:MelanieN's protection from 30 days to 1 day. Just making sure this is what you intended. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not. I had originally protected the page for 1 hour to give myself time to sort through the vandalism, then increased it to 1 day when I found out there was a 4chan thread going on. I didn't realize Melanie had upped the protection duration in the meantime. Karl Dickman talk 01:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Hello KD. Just wanted to let you know that 90.205.211.171 (talk · contribs) has returned to making the same edits after the block that you placed on them expired. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Eagle-eyed edit evaluator[edit]

Black Eagle in Kaggalipura.JPG Revert Raptor
Thanks for your tireless attention to recent edits! GrammarFascist contribstalk 13:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding IP user 2001:8003:620F:1B00:5861:E7E5:6517:7A22[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you warned IP user 2001:8003:620F:1B00:5861:E7E5:6517:7A22 about one of their edits (and reverted that edit). They made a total of over 2 dozen edits, almost all of them removing Category:American people of African descent or related categories from articles about African-Americans. I noticed this after their edit to Howard Sims (which I watch) and checked their other contributions on a hunch; I then evaluated, and wound up reverting, all their edits that had not already been reverted by other editors. While they appear to have stopped, I'm concerned that they might just have IP-hopped (or had their IP address change without their intending it) and be doing the same thing under another address. As I understand it, as an administrator you have some ability to check for that sort of thing? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 13:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sumit Girl[edit]

follow up: You protected against re-creation of this cv twice , for 30 days, Each time , the page was right after the month re-created & deleted. I've protected indefinitely and given an indef block to the editor. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open![edit]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
For Your Philosophy! Building The future through History 15:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:FBK2006.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:FBK2006.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:FBK2006 editing A.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:FBK2006 editing A.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:FBK2006 editing B.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:FBK2006 editing B.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:FBK2006 alt group photo.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:FBK2006 alt group photo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:FBK2006 editing C.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:FBK2006 editing C.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Karl Dickman. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

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

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

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BritishPostwarAircraft[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:BritishPostwarAircraft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

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[edit]

Hi Karl Dickman.

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![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Karl Dickman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Karl Dickman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon![edit]

US-O11 insignia.svg 6 Star.svg
Milhist coordinator emeritus.svg

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

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.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg 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.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png 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.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Missile specifications[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Missile specifications has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Aero-table[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Aero-table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 14:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)