Citicat

I don't mind removing Bowyer that as long there is a criteria written as an article heading which is the biggest issue of this article. Higuita was according to sources until it was quashed later, which is the same case for Hurricane the boxer. Jay Pegg (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

This source states: The charge of illegal profiting was dropped last week, but Higuita must stand trial for withholding information and this was published in May 23, 1994, his prison sentence was in 1993, as this source says. Jay Pegg (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well according to the article on here, he was released without having ever technically being charged. But I don't want to nit-pick, so I'll stop bugging you about it. Cheers! CitiCat ^♫ 14:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

For the Woodgate case, therefore I'm not sure what the US equivalent is but it is considered to be a prisonable offence (the same case for the singer Cheryl Cole, who would had a prison sentence had they not had the money for a decent lawyer).

Reading the talk bit, I am realising that as this list is getting complex, therefore I excluded any traffic offence such as speeding unless the person is imprisoned for it as in the UK, traffic violation is not considered to be a serious offence, they have to reach 12 points in their license or drive over 100mph on public road to receive a ban. I'm not sure if in the US, DUI is considered to be a criminal offence, but I know in the UK, a prison sentence can be imposed on it if a driver is caught whilst banned or kills or seriously maims a person whilst driving, which is the case for Naseem Hamed.

As I have already added my bit on the talk bit, I think Phil Taylor is worth including considering he has a criminal conviction, plus getting a community service (for Harding's case) is better than being labelled a pervert for several years by the court.

I personally, think, if we were to exclude those who did not go to prison, then I would suggest the title List of professional sportspeople who have been imprisoned for crimes, that will make the article less complex. Jay Pegg (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I notice the article in the DYK next update, and I'm dropping you a note to say that I really enjoyed the article. I didn't know that he had legal troubles for the drug trafficking or that he had disappeared. Royalbroil 13:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I made a change; I hope it's better now. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

This addition was the suggestion of a friend, but I do agree with you that that he didn't really make any money, he just lived on his father's money and whored himself for attention to get more cash. In short, he is simply a spoiled idiot with a famous father with the intellect of Paris Hilton, just my opinion.

This really raised the issue up as I feel that professional is become a vague term nowadays, this is as there are professional sport series that consists of sportspeople who have daily jobs to go to when they are not competing, a common case for motorsport and there are low end professional league consisting of paid sportspeople

Therefore would that really mean we will just include people who are just primarily notable as sportspeople, rather than notable people who compete in sports as hobbies (or have a failed career as sportspeople). Jay Pegg (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Trouble is, I'm not sure whether to delete this entry or keep it since he is more famous for other things than as a sportsman. Jay Pegg (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I think i've clarified it now but do you think there's a better way of putting it? Thanks Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I never got back to you on this. Here in the bottom section next to the photo is detail of his drug reduction etc - but maybe it should be more specific in the body of the article. Thanks! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, This is regarding my "Dubai International Academic City" article. Its not an advertisement for sure as if you read it, I have mentioned my own experiences which includes the good as well as bad points ( the last topic named "the present situation"). Also, about being copied from the link you gave, i have already given a reference link at the bottom and there isnt more than 1 or 2 lines which are directly picked from there.

Or, how do you suggest to do any changes to it.

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaboo (talk • contribs) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

--  jj137 (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

--  jj137 (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes, 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/List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes (2nd nomination). 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. Kevin (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

After days of research I improved the American Pit Bull Terrier article. Whenever I contribute to this article a user named "HelloAnnyong" revert it. He falsely claims that I used copyrighted material. It wasn't my source but he always revert my text. So I ask a moderator to review the text. Maybe it's not all so good which I wrote but there I posted some very well documented information with veritable source like from OFA, UKC and "Colby's Book of the American Pit Bull Terrier" by By Louis B. Colby,1997, ISBN-10: 079382091X. Just compare the two versions. Thank You very much.k84m97 (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2007. Ikip (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ruchir Punjabi , has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruchir Punjabi (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Codf1977 (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Citicat,

I'm a new Wiki user and I have a question for you: why was the page John Edward Tang (author) deleted and is there no trace of the contens of that article?

When you look up John Edward Tang on Wikipedia you won't find anything unless you select Everything. Only then I find this article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edward Tang (author). Carefully reading this article and following all the links, I found this article: Revision history of John Edward Tang (author). On this page there are only the "deletion and move log" available. I understand that John Edward Tang was judged to be either not a "notable author" or a hoax, but why was the original article not kept for reference?

Following the links link in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edward Tang (author) and next this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_35, I had a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV page and I understand that I should talk to you first. This is all new to me, but do I have it right in assuming that you are the one who deleted the article?

So my question is: why was the original article not kept for reference, clearly indicating that the information contained in it is questionable, does not have verifiable references or whatever else is applicable? Is the original still available hidden somewhere on Wikipedia? Is there a possibility to restore the article, be it in a adapted way?

My main point is that anyone interested in finding some objective information about John Edward Tang, cannot rely on Wikipedia for that. Only a cursory "not a 'notable author' or a hoax" and even then this information is not easily accessible. Imo it would be better to leave the article available on Wikipedia with some clear warning as to verifiability/ intentions of the source, letting readers make up their own mind about the information. Not knowing the content of the article, I might be wrong about all this. Just seeking clarification. But with all due respect, isn't deleting this article plain censorship?

Btw, I'm not affiliated in any way to John Edward Tang or the author of the deleted article, just an interested student seeking information and striving for free dissemination of information on the digital highway.

--MauryFuen (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Victoria Scott D'Angelo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Scott D'Angelo(2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear Citicat,

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

So a few things about the interviews:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 13:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I created this page and it was deleted about two days later, but I didn't receive any notification, I just noticed from my watchlist that it had been deleted. Do you know who nominated it and why I didn't receive a message? I think a dab with 2 entries and a very similar see also should at least have a discussion before deletion, and certainly I should have been informed. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer, Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have responded at my page. Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I wasn't aware it was controversial, still don't know why
• I assume that you read this, currently on my talk page, and checked here before insinuating bias.
• I would have been happy to userfy the page once asked. It would have been polite to give me the opportunity to do so before assuming bad faith
• It would also have been polite to wait for a reply from me before implying that I had acted improperly on another editor's talk page

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, you still haven't explained why it's a controversial article, rather than a possibly controversial deletion. I made a judgement in good faith; while I accept that I may not always get things right, I resent being accused of bias by another admin, rather than an aggrieved newbie, especially when that admin says "I fully admit to not having a neutral view on this" (pot and kettle, eh?). The article has been userfied and hopefully will come back a in better form. I'm obviously wasting my time here, since you are unlikely to accept anything I say. You have the power to restore the article; I won't accuse you of wheeling if you do so, I'll just walk away. You can also go to ANI, as I'm sure you know. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, let's start again. On the controversy, I hadn't thought of the US dimension, it wouldn't raise hackles here. Talking of which, I may have over-reacted to the perceived slur, I should AGF too, sorry.

I thought the article was generally promotional in tone. Just looking at the first headed section, to quote the mission statement is fair enough, but then we get The overall purpose... free of religious dogma... The camp is dedicated to... It promotes tolerance, empathy, self-respect, self-expression, critical and creative thinking, cooperation, and ethics... The camp intended goal is to offer a space where children who are already nonreligious can feel comfortable and accepted. — Much of the rest of the article is similarly pov opinion disguised as fact, I could give more examples, but you can look for yourself.

I should say that I'm sympathetic to the aims of the organisation. I'm not starting from a Christian fundamentalist position, I just think this is as one-sided as the Christian camp articles often are. My preference would be to see what the revised version comes back as, but if you really think this is a reasonably neutral article, I'll restore it, and then you can afd, leave it or whatever. Let me know. I'm sorry I got ratty with you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Josh Boone (basketball) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in the NBA in free-throw percentage among players with at least one hundred attempts, at 45.6%<ref>[http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/free-throws/sort/freeThrowPct/year/2008/seasontype/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Grover Powell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• with them since his sophomore year.<ref>http://www.ivy50.com/story.aspx?sid=1/5/2007 Grover Powell] at Ivy50.com. Retrieved 2013-7-03.</ref> After one full year in the minor leagues and part of a

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Panman Thanks, Panman (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was doing vandalism reverting duties on WP:Huggle, so I wasn't sure. Sorry about that. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 01:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Memo Gidley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and had rolled to a near stop on the track, when Gidley hit him at approximately 120 mph.<ref>[http://msn.foxsports.com/speed/sports-cars/scary-rolex-24-wreck-sends-two-drivers-to-daytona-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roosevelt Raceway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westbury (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) 08:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

Hi Citcat! I am wondering if I could re-create the article "Tucket's Travels." To notify me please place {{ping|Acj1}} Thanks, Acj1|Sign?|Say Hi To Me! 17:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

PS. Be sure to sign my guest book here!

I'm curious why both players were removed. Voynov was convicted and was even given jail time for his crime. Stoll did plea guilty to two lesser charges. Jasonstru (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AHL. 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) 10:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Speculation that Iapetus is artificial. Since you had some involvement with the Speculation that Iapetus is artificial redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Woodburn Bank Bombing at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

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) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Citicat.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading File:New Brunswick.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) 22:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

At the very least the archive you obtained it from would be helpful. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading File:New Brunswick.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.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fort frolic. Since you had some involvement with the Fort frolic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Gorthian (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

  Administrator changes

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

  Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

  Guideline and policy news

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

  Technical news

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

  Arbitration

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

  Obituaries

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

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1955 Indianapolis 500, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack McGrath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Herostratus (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply