User talk:Samir

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


Esophageal food bolus obstruction[edit]

Dude, I've just made some edits to the "conservative" part of Esophageal food bolus obstruction, where there's a number of useful secondary sources. I hadn't realised that the evidence base for glucagon was so poor (a single actual study - PMID 7600855 - and lots of case reports and opinion). JFW | T@lk 08:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ERCP (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) 09:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

Samir, Could you please review my rollback request, I require it in order to carry out by anti-vandalism duties. It is very hard to revert vandalistic edits without it. I ask that you review it and let me do my job. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 17:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No you don't "need" rollback and we like to see more of an edit history after your ban [1] Samir 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Hello Samir, my name is Jim Carter. I did seen you an active user in WP:Request for permissions/. I am having trouble to understand how much edits are needed to get reviewer rights. Currently, I'm a reviewer of AfC drafts. Not only I review drafts but also I improve them so that they can be moved to mainspace. You can see them here. Anyways, can you please let me know how much edits are necessary. Thank you. Jim Carter (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Samir, I'm here again. Actually I need some help. I think I need mass message sender rights. Actually I'm improving Wikiproject WP:ORPHAN. It is in a bad condition, day by day it is becoming inactive. Most of its participants are although active in Wikipedia. But they are not cooperating with this wikiproject. I want to save this project from becoming inactive. There are already a huge number of orphan articles which needs immediate attention. So, I have organised a re-opening of this project. And I need to send members of this {{WPORPHANdrive}} notification (Just like WP:AfC backlog notification). The list of active users can be found here. It is necessary to start this project so that the huge backlog of 121,213 articles since 2008 can be eliminated. It is not possible for few user to do this. So, I need this right atleast for somedays. I'm also working on a bot who can do this but I'm not sure it will work. So, I was wondering if you can help? Jim Carter (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Samir for your quick reply. Actually I have never requested anything like this on public. That is why I have asked you here on your talkpage. But you have also refered me to the same place. Anyways, can you please let me know if I'm eligible to get this right or not. I will request for this permission after listening your opinion. Many thanks. Jim Carter (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

I don't mean to bother you, but could you please review Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. It seems like there is a backlog of requests. Thanks TheMesquito (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:CBC with Hct.jpg 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) 14:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Another one of your uploads, File:Coin in esophagus 2.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


Curiosity about Autopatrolled rights[edit]

Hello Samir, coming to you after some time. How are you? Let me tell you why I'm here again. I have been creating articles, templates, talkpages, javascripts etc for quite sometime now. Since I'm creating those stuffs I thought of requesting autopatrolled rights but I don't know if I'm eligible for that right. I have seen Dargonflysixtyseven indulges lots and lots of time in reviewing the huge backlog of new pages. Since I have been creating pages so I thought of asking for this right so that I can help users who indulges huge time to review pages. As I mentioned you earlier, I have not only created articles. But also rewritten articles, improved old abandoned drafts etc. One of my newest article is Early Nationalists, a B class; Top importance article. Sitush is also trying to add more info(s) and take it for GA or Peer review. It is currently on DYK nominations page; reviewed by Zanhe and has been passed. I have also been involved in creating Javascripts for WikiProjects like AfC and WikiProject Delsorting etc. There are links in my userpage which will take you to my created articles and Javascripts. On the other hand I have also created many templates and Userboxes. One my finest templates created onbehalf of WP:OVERKILL is {{Ck}}. I have also saved WP:ORPHAN from getting inactive. So I thought of asking you about your opinion about my elibility to get this userright before I go public. Many Thanks!. (You can leave your message on your talkpage, I have it on my Watchlist) Thank you again; your opinions are precious. :) Jim Carter (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply :) Jim Carter (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Samir, how are you? I have created another article on an Indian politician (see here) It is also a DYK, so I thought you might be interested to have a read. BTW, Samir I haven't asked for autopatrolled flag; Actually I'm afraid to go public. Though some fellow editors said nothing to dare about but still my legs become dead cold when thinking about an open request for permission. So I thought of requesting you since we know each other for quite sometime now. Please don't deny my request, Samir. You can trust me :) Many thanks. Jim Carter (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Image[edit]

It has been a long time since you deleted this image: File:Esophagus path.jpg. It is now on Commons at File:Tinción hematoxilina-eosina.jpg. Do you have any more details that would help to know more about it? Do you know who uploaded it? Would you say that it is cut somewhat obliquely? Snowman (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Samir/Yellow Pigs Day[edit]

There's been some activity recently. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ottawa bowel score[edit]

please look at article — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIENDOSCOPY (talkcontribs) 17:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

File:HRS and ascites pathophysiology.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HRS and ascites pathophysiology.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Rodrigolopes (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

File:HRS spectrum.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HRS spectrum.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Rodrigolopes (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert Birgeneau, Canadian physicist and former UC Berkeley Chancellor[edit]

Hello Samir,

I thought I'd contact you since you are interested in physics and Canadians. :] I'm working with a conflict of interest editor, Amy Hamaoui, Director of Public Relations at UC Berkeley. I'm teaching her basic encyclopedic writing style, and have introduced her to Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines. She has information she'd like to have added by a neutral editor to the article on former Chancellor Robert Birgeneau regarding his physics career prior to becoming Chancellor (being a COI editor, she does not plan on editing mainspace). Would you potentially be available to look over her sandbox, suggest changes, and incorporate new information into the article? If not, do you know any other neutral editors with an interest in physics biographies I who might be available to do so? Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you!! - Eekiv 04:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Nigerian constitution[edit]

I would like to create a redirect to Constitution of Nigeria from this name but this page has been previously deleted due to r1 content. What is r1 and can it be created without this? Rubbish computer 16:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC) I've found out what r1 is and as the page now exists will create this redirect. Please tell me if this is a problem. Rubbish computer 16:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evyen Klean, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Veep. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg Welcome back! So glad to see you here again! KrakatoaKatie 22:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Page Jakob Baxter[edit]

Sir, it is to my dismay to be sending this but, I would like to know why my wiki was deleted. I am Jakob Baxter, and was wondering why it's not okay to do that. Thank you for telling me. I was not aware — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob Baxter (talkcontribs) 04:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Collateral damage from rangeblock[edit]

Hi Samir,

I'm writing on your talk page because you took part in the discussion about the extension of a range IP block, there're less than 2 hours left for the new block to start and yesterday I added some information making a summary at the end of the section: may you please join back the discussion and give your final opinion about the matter?

Thank you in advance!

Centocinquantuno (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Bloom6132[edit]

Hi. I saw you archived the thread at ANI. Does this count as incivility? Bloom is getting his/her priorities wrong still, and has an issue with it. He should be apologizing to me, not to Josh. I think he's got away with it very lightly.  — Calvin999 09:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Calvin. Removing content on one's own talk page has been reviewed a few times, and is thought to be OK. Not nice, but within the rules. If there is any other concern regarding civility, please don't hesitate to buzz me. All the best. Samir 15:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Just yesterday, Calvin informed me on ANI that "[y]ou're entitled to remove things from you're own talk". It's interesting to note how he's now suggesting that this very act constitutes incivility. What's with the sudden change? —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Once again, you're missing the point. Yes, you can edit your own talk as your like, but why didn't you remove Josh's comment? Because he can block you? Your somewhat murky apology was given to the wrong person. Removing my comment, which was perfectly civil and had a point to it, shows that you have a lack of respect and poor judgment. It's only made you look worse in this situation as a whole as you can't seem to deal with authority (well, you can, from someone who can block you). It was bad faith on your part; you had a few opportunities to apologise for your behavior and you rejected them. I still think you should have been blocked and other editors agreed, given your history too.  — Calvin999 10:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. If I'm the one missing the point all this time, how's your advocacy for GA→DYK WikiCup points going? How much support have you garnered for that idea of yours (i.e. the source of the original argument)? Your description of your comment as "perfectly civil and had a point to it" is laughable at best. Your demanding that I apologize to you and giving your two cents worth over whether I should be blocked (once again showing your inability to accept WP:CONSENSUS) is the sort of gunboat diplomacy that is ABC (anything but civil). I wasn't apologizing to Josh, and I'm sure as hell not afraid of him blocking me, since he's clearly WP:INVOLVED not just from last year's ANI, but from last year's WikiCup discussion as well. And of course I'm not apologizing to you, as it takes two to start a fight. Not to mention the fact that you chose to take offence at something that is not offensive, and had no intent of being offensive. Yet I see you go around several discussion threads proclaiming that you're entitled to an apology and that I should apologize to you. You know what, since it irks you so very much, I'm going to continue my policy of not giving you the apology you so desperately want. But I will give you the last word. Go ahead, be my guest. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes you are. I didn't start a fight, I started a discussion which you then turned into a battleground for incivility. You did apologise to Josh on your own talk - "I apologize for my ignorance" - albeit half-heartedly. You was offensive and others agree, and the fact that last year an ANI thread that huge was because of you shows how offensive a person you are. You can continue to choose to not apologise because you've clearly had no intention of ever doing it anyway. Also, this comment "You know what, since it irks you so very much, I'm going to continue my policy of not giving you the apology you so desperately want" is another uncivil comment because it shows that you are deliberately trying to piss me off; you keep trapping yourself in your own web with the comments you are making. I posted here on Samir's talk, and you have now created an argument here. You don't want any arguments or comments on your own talk, but you clearly don't care about imposing it on someone else's. Pinging J Milburn for his opinion.  — Calvin999 10:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
(With apologies to Samir- this is the only comment I will make here.) Bloom, Calvin's views about the WikiCup points are not the source of this. As I have repeatedly said, I find his arguments uncompelling and somewhat confused. But there's no one calling for me to be blocked. The source of this dispute is your continued wikilawyering and battleground mentality- both as clear as ever in your post above, and both of which have been identified as problematic (and potentially warranting a block) by numerous editors. The fact that you're already laying out your arguments for why me blocking you would be against some policy doesn't exactly fill with me with confidence that you have any intention of changing your problematic behaviour. On the other hand, Calvin, I would recommend disengaging at this time. Your interpretation of Bloom's comment as a deliberate attempt at provocation doesn't look unreasonable. Don't rise to it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Happy to see you back again! Hope things are well with you? Jim Carter 13:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI close[edit]

Regarding this close, uh...no. If you think I did anything wrong in calling the attempt to use an Alex Jones claim on YouTube 'bullshit conspiracy', then you've got other issues. There are no rules or guidelines I violated. I wasn't the editor that was reverted by 4 other editors trying to insert bullshit conspiracies into a BLP. I reject your advisement 100%. Get a clue. Dave Dial (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You were incivil in those diffs and incivil above even if you were entirely correct in redacting the Alex Jones ref. I suggest you keep it cool champ -- Samir 03:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I was not incivil. I was direct. I was being kinder than I should have been, and I tire quickly of editors bringing content disputes to my Talk page. When I tell them to stay off my page and use the article Talk page, I expect that to happen. Article discussions belong on articles. And above, I am being direct. If you cannot understand what happened on both my page and the article, then you are probably not suited to be an admin. I was preventing serious BLP violations(as were other editors) from being placed into one of Wikipedia's most trafficked articles. I suggest you do a little research on the issues concerning the ANI report before you close them. If you did research the issue, and still made that close, then you shouldn't be closing any ANI threads. I will let the close stand, but if I see further mistakes by you on ANI closes, it will become an issue. Dave Dial (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me also add that I was staying away from that thread because I rely on the editors and admins at ANI to handle spurious complaints. I didn't think I had to defend myself because any editor or admin that looked at the issue would use common sense and just tell the other editor that he was edit warring and inserting serious BLP violations, and that I didn't do anything wrong. Instead, you tagged me with an 'advisement'. Advising editors to avoid "potentially offensive edit summaries" in spurious complaints is not good practice, and only encourages the type of behavior the other editor continues to engage in. It does that editor no good, and only pisses off the other editors who are correct. This will be my last comment to you. Dave Dial (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You are again advised to adhere to WP:CIV. Keep your emotions to yourself even when redacting comments on your own talk page, no matter what the context. What you interpret as direct can be interpreted as incivil, as it was by me. You are not dealing with a confederacy of dunces, no matter how much you seem to think that everyone else, myself included, has no clue -- Samir 21:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No one can stand User:DD2K's freaking bullshit not intelligent at all behavior any more, and if you do, you wouldn't be doing them any favor. You know what they say, "sometimes the worst punishment is not to be punished at all". Take care and sorry for the mess with the BLP. Alex (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No probs. Samir 21:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

I have noticed that when you block vandals, you sometimes leave a polite explanation,[2], but you have not been leaving a templated message.In other cases you leftno message at all. The templated block message includes important information about how the blocked user might appeal the block. Scripts are available to make the message easier to apply. Contact me if you would like more information about how to use block templates. If you do not plan to use them, please explain why. Regards, Edison (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure I can leave templated messages. The unblock request is important. For obvious vandals with no intent to help the encyclopedia, I haven't been leaving a message but I certainly can. Thanks for your reminder -- Samir 23:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Blocking policy page does say "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them. Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page. It is often easier to explain the reason for a block at the time than it is to explain a block well after the event. When implementing a block, a number of pro forma block reasons are available in a drop-down menu; other or additional reasons can also be added. Users can be notified of blocks and block reasons using a number of convenient template messages—see Category:User block templates and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace." I use a Twinkle dropdown and it is quicker than writing out a reason, which probably gives the vandal less satisfaction. Not all administrators leave a message when blocking an obvious vandalism-only account. Regards and keep up the good work. Edison (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks again for the reminder. Best to you too -- Samir 23:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Feuerstein[edit]

Why did you speedy this as an attack page? Did it look really negative before you did that? The version I remember the article looking like (which predates the version you deleted) didn't seem negative enough to justify speedy deleting the page. Everymorning (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Everymorning. The entire page consisted of his DOB, a one line descriptor and 3 paragraphs of single-sourced criticism. Nothing about what he did as an evangelist. I think it qualified as an attack page. I would not be averse to recreation or WP:DRV. Thanks -- Samir 00:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Joshua Feuerstein[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Joshua Feuerstein. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Everymorning (talk) 13:31, 16 November 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) 13:05, 23 November 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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Samir. 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. 17:49, 23 September 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) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Samir.

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[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)

Feddy Roosevelt listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feddy Roosevelt. Since you had some involvement with the Feddy Roosevelt redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago[edit]

Awesome
Cscr-featured.svg
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)