User talk:Ocee

This user may have left Wikipedia. Ocee has not edited Wikipedia since 10 November 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

niobium[edit]

Do you mind if I unprotect this, I will keep an eye on the vandalism edits. Usually we keep main page article open in order to encourage new editors. And someone reported being unable to edit at WP:AN/I--BirgitteSB 23:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC) It is both off the main page and unprotected now so nevermind.--BirgitteSB 00:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFA protection[edit]

Hi, Ocee. Semiprotecting the main page FA generally isn't done, except in unusual circumstances. You said in your protection summary that the article had been vandalized "dozens" of times since appearing on the main page, but I count only three, which isn't nearly enough to justify protection. Do you have any objections if I go ahead and unprotect this? --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be away, so I'm going to unprotect it (the article I'm talking about is Learned Hand by the way). I'm sorry for not waiting for your reply, but I don't want it to stay semiprotected any longer than it needs to be, especially since it's on the main page. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Bongwarrior (cool name, btw, haha)! Yeah, definitely no worries on the unprotection, if you ever think I'm away and have done something out of sorts, revert away mate. Apologies for the confusion on the edit summary; I had semi-protected the previous three or four day's main page featured articles after they had been vandalised dozens of times, and I accidentally used the same text when typing in the "other reason" (my browser saves what I type in those boxes, and I must have just glossed over it). I figure since the previous several day's featured articles hadn't been vandalised much since I put the semi-protection on, it would be a good idea to semi-protect the main page featured article starting at the beginning of the day. If you'll look back to the main page featured article's this week, you'll see little to no useful content coming from users hiding behind IP's.

Since the main page featured article is supposed to represent some of the best content we have to offer, it only makes sense that when people click on Learned Hand or any other featured article of the day, they should get to learn about the judge, and not be subjected to silliness regarding the size of a part of this chap's anatomy.

Furthermore, since the article is just about as good as it's going to get, as it's been through the FA process and many volunteers have devoted hours upon hours to this article, it is unlikely that it's going to benefit much from one more day's worth of additional content. That is, while I don't think we should semi-protect all featured articles, they can definitely do with being semi-protected for one day.

In addition, that guideline hasn't been discussed in months, and I took the opportunity to be bold. :D Thanks for the note mate! ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would ask that you not semiprotect the main page FA without an urgent, compelling reason to do so. I appreciate your boldness, and your desire to keep the main page featured article accurate, but I don't think that a unilateral decision to automatically apply semiprotection reflects the will of the community or the spirit of the project.

No article is perfect, not even featured articles. If there are some small improvements to be had, there's no reason an IP or new user can't be the one to make the changes, if we allow them the opportunity to do so. And make no mistake about it, anonymous users contribute plenty to the project. It's easy–but incorrect–to assume that the bulk of anonymous users are just vandals "hiding" behind their IPs.

In my mind, the real reason why it shouldn't be semiprotected is because it's not exactly the best way to welcome new users. We'd essentially be saying to them, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Here's today's featured article. No, you may not edit it." Contradictory, to say the least.

It's not uncommon to see increased levels of vandalism on a main page FA, but that's not always a given. Some days, it's hardly touched at all during its stay on the main page. What is uncommon is for any vandalism to remain there for any length of time. There are plenty of eyes on it, and any vandalism is usually swiftly reverted–for example, the diff that you provided above was reverted one minute later. That said, on occasion semiprotection does become necessary, usually as a result of coordinated off-wiki attacks. I've had to protect it a few times myself, but in those cases a semiprotection of a few hours at most will usually be sufficient.

I'm going to unprotect it again, per currently accepted practice, and ask that you please refrain from protecting these articles in the future. I respect your motives, and you're not alone–there was significant support for your position in a discussion here a while back. If you think that these articles should be automatically semiprotected, a formal RFC on the matter might be the best course of action. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again! Thanks for the note, but I'm not sure if we're on the same page. I actually completely agree with you that anonymous users contribute an enormous amount of time writing quality content and that most users who have registered started out editing anonymously. I definitely don't assume that the bulk of anonymous users are vandals; quite the opposite actually! However, since the featured article of the day is unlikely to be improved much and the clear history that the vast majority of people using IP's to edit that page on that day are doing so to vandalise the page, it only makes sense to keep the article semi-protected. If they'd like to edit the featured article of the day in the future, they can just register an account; it's easy and there's a clear link pointing them towards how to register an account when they find that they are restricted from editing that page.

I appreciate your wiki-ideology and I agree with it to an extent. I think it's great that anyone can volunteer their time to help build an encyclopedia; it's an amazing project and a testament to what can be accomplished when people work together. However, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of pages on the English Wikipedia that are protected in some form. I believe that the means justify the ends with regards to semi-protecting the main page, as we are ensured that the article represents the best we have to offer, ensures that the work that the dedicated writers put in won't be besmirched, and also ensures that each visitor gets to read a quality article free of vandalism. I'd be happy to get the community's opinion on the issue, and if it's determined that there's a clear mandate not to semi-protect the main page featured article, well then great! I'm more than happy to follow the community's decision on this, but since WP:NOPRO is only a guideline and there hasn't been much discussion lately, I think that semi-protecting the featured article of the day is definitely the way to go. ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 16:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to gather some outside opinions here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were bold. That's fine. You were reverted. The next step is discussion, not warring over protection. --Onorem ♠Dil 04:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring at today's featured article[edit]

Regarding [1], whatever your personal views on protection of the article at WP:TFA, there is no justification to engage in wheel warring over this. Please undo your last protection of this article. Discussion is here. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The protection was undone by another admin. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate, thanks for the update! I just made a comment on ANI, and I think we're good now, thanks again and apologies if I've put you out ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 06:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about putting me out or anyone else in particular, but rather about WP:WHEEL. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job[edit]

I was reviewing the history of "Sam Blackweter" and noticed that you were one of the few people who opposed his adminship. While not conclusive proof of your savvy it is indeed a very good indicator of your faculties. I can't tell if you are an admin (not sure how to look it up without looking at a userpage), but if you ever apply then send me a line - we need more cautious administrators. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hey there!![edit]

Hi Ocee. Are you back here now then? - Alison ^❤ 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it yourself there Alison, how's the crack? ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 08:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from me as well. Secret ^account 13:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really?[edit]

You brought back the article International Sport Combat Federation. The "requestor" made it very clear that he has no intention of reading the policies I suggested like WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:COI etc. Do you see them complying with policies they refuse to read? His "request" was nothing short of a long ranting personal attack. But you just restored the article, not even bothering to caution him about his attacks or that reading the involved policies would be a good idea. That doesn't seem very responsible. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Thanks for dropping me a note, but I don't think the fellow was attacking you, hehe. He was just explaining why he feels that his organisation warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. Perhaps he was a bit exasperated by being lambasted with wiki-bet soup, but that's understandable. As you saw on the talk page, I provided reliable sources, and you have to understand that we're dealing with real people with real concerns, and to shoo them off with thousands of lines of wiki-bet soup is poor form ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 21:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He addressed me specifically about things I said in the AfD. "you and the others were rude, insulting and ALL of your claimed accusations were FALSE!!" sounds like he is attacking me. ""YOU" went on to comment; "Interestingly, the 2nd link has nothing more recent than 2007 and the first one shows 2008 as the last event. Truthfully, that makes me feel they are even less notable than before. Niteshift36" How can you make such a comment? YOU haven't even attempted to look into the issue." sounds a lot like he is going after me personally. There is plenty more. Don't excuse his behavior. Telling them the appropriate policies isn't "bad form" at all. It's helpful. What is NOT helpful is his idea that he just doesn't have time to read them. I wonder what they'd tell a fighter in a bout they sanctioned who told them that he doesn't have time to read their rules? Do you think they'd think that was just fine? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of International Sport Combat Federation[edit]

A tag has been placed on International Sport Combat Federation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The org itself isn't a valid reference to establish notability and sherdog.com has been questionable in the past. If you want to tighten the article up, why not do it on a userpage first, then put it in live space. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of International Sport Combat Federation[edit]

I have nominated International Sport Combat Federation, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Sport Combat Federation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Rather than throw a talkback template, I wanted to let you know that a couple of comments have been made since you posted at my RfA - as well as some questions were asked that specifically related to the 10 month old issue you raised. I'm hoping that I covered the issue in a way that gives you a better idea overall. Let me know if I can answer more. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Opsb logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Opsb logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity[edit]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, 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 and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate, thanks for the heads up! ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 02:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:2004nationalchampions.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:2004nationalchampions.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 15:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:2006team.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:2006team.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 16:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:RugbySuperLeague Logo Color.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:RugbySuperLeague Logo Color.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Div3.sized.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Div3.sized.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 04:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of feeder teams in football[edit]

The source you are adding does not pass WP:RS, whereas When Saturday Comes does. You also appear to have abused your use of WP:ROLLBACK - if you do it again then you might lose it. Please do not re-add the source without explaining why it should be included on the article talk page. Either way, a valid source (the WSC) should not be removed. If you can gain consensus that your source should be included, then both can be used together. Giant Snowman 18:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Belmont Shore LOGO-color-sm.JPG[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Belmont Shore LOGO-color-sm.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Team2005.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Team2005.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 16:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ombac logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ombac logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ombac logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ombac logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Biw0.gif[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Biw0.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Davewilliams usarugby ireland.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Davewilliams usarugby ireland.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 08:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:P3251694.sized.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:P3251694.sized.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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. Kelly ^hi! 09:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Hello, Ocee. 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)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

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) 01:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Ocee.

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) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Ocee. 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)[reply]

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.

Administrator changes

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

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Obituaries

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

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Ocee. 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]

Courses Modules are being deprecated[edit]

Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

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 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, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five 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. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years 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. — JJMC89 bot 00:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Ocee. 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]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

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 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, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five 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. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years 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. — JJMC89 bot 00:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

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 have been removed. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, 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, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five 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. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years 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. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]