1: 10/05–12/06
2: 12/06–01/07
3: 01/07–02/07
4: 02/07–03/07
5: 03/07–06/07
6: 06/07–09/07
7: 09/07–11/07
8: 11/07–11/07
9: 11/07–12/07
10: 12/07–01/08
11: 01/08–02/08
12: 02/08–03/08
13: 03/08–04/08
14: 04/08–05/08
15: 05/08–06/08
16: 06/08–07/08
17: 07/08–07/08
18: 07/08–08/08
19: 08/08–10/08
20: 10/08–04/09
21: 04/09–01/10
22: 01/10–11/12
23: 12/12–03/13
24: 05/13–12/15

Thanks for dropping me a note! Don't be shy about asking questions, I'm always glad to help. I will reply to messages here, so you may want to watchlist this page.

If you'd like to undo an action of mine and can't get a hold of me within a reasonable time, go ahead. If I disagree, we can discuss it when I'm back. This applies to admin actions too.

Okay so when using the web citation templates, when it asks for name, ect, that is for the website or the author? That whole template has me a bit confused Dread Skott (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dread Skott, yeah that stuff is confusing. Often you can figure it out by looking at the template documentation, which is supposed to explain it (i.e. go to template:cite web or whatever). name= is for the author's name (or alternately you can use last= and first= for the name). I think the name of the website goes in its own |website= parameter. You can also just play around with it filling in the values and previewing, then save when you like how it looks! BTW you know about WP:RS though right? Some random website doesn't cut it, it has to be something that gets vetted by an editor (like, I don't know, huffington post, or E! news). Let me know if I can help with anything! delldot ∇. 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When including the critics responses to productions of the work of a playwright, would it be appropriate to have the name of the play as a header, the location and date of the production as a subhead then bullet the names of the reviewers and their publications with links to the actual review?

Thank you for your guidance!

Maura MauraJunius (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MauraJunius, good to see you're still improving it! Tough question. I don't know what the actual convention is, fortunately there's WikiProject Theatre full of folks who work on these types of articles. They don't have a guideline for playwrights but WikiProject Theatre/Article Structure has a guideline for a Response section. It's not detailed enough to answer your question though. In my opinion, it would be best to have a general header like Critical reception, then maybe subheaders for each play if there's enough info to fill out a good sized subsection. Otherwise I'd just write it out in different paragraphs. A bulleted list could work, but it might be better to just write it out in prose--I think bulleted lists are not preferred. Then I would definitely link to the reviews but I would do it in the references section--i.e. put the reference with the link between <ref></ref> tags at the end of the relevant sentence. I looked at A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant which is a featured article, meaning the community has deemed it among the best articles. I look at FA's in the relevant area when I'm trying to figure out how to write something. Here are more theater FA's. Anyway look at the Pageant article's Reception section, that's the way I'd format it (of course you're dealing with more than one play). Anyway, I hope this helps, let me know if I can clarify anything! delldot ∇. 23:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This category clearly meets the requirements of speedy deletion, the same editor has recreated the same categories under albeit under slightly different title variations on multiple occasions and each time the concensus is the same. It's actually disruptive behavior at this point.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you TriiipleThreat, there's no way we're keeping this one, but I was loath to close the CFD discussion as speedy delete because there were other pages being discussed at the same time. I thought it might actually be more efficient to let the thing run its course. But I have no problem with speedying either. I think the way you typically express your opinion is to comment with a speedy delete in the deletion discussion rather than tagging the page. You can weigh in on the other cats that way too. Peace, delldot ∇. 03:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sexuality after spinal cord injury page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for reviewing our article.. come join the fun at the WikiCup! Reviewing good articles gets you points. Hope to see you competing soon! ツStacey (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite! I write at a pretty glacial pace though. I miiiight have a look. :) delldot ∇. 21:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, so do we normally.. This has become strangely competitive! Dave (User:Worm That Turned) does all the writing while I make brews and poke him with a stick.. Its really working; I feel I am really achieving something! ツStacey (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see, very clever! Do I get a stick too if I join? delldot ∇. 21:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been poked for MOTIVATION - "YOU CAN WIN.. a barnstar..", you were poked by Stacey on 21:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC).

Ah, consider me motivated! delldot ∇. 21:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to join! If you just score points you will be through the first round.. You've already got points from your Good article review.. Come on! ツStacey (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, so you can retroactively claim points after you join? delldot ∇. 06:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, it is for anything done since 1st January :) Get signed up! ツStacey (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for inviting me delldot. Happy to be here. -- BetaVersa (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:) Talk to you soon I hope, BetaVersa delldot ∇. 07:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping to make the article Neonatal infection get even better with your recent edit. I just found out that it is in the que to appear on the Main page in the "Did you know..." section in about a week. If you would like to help make it even better, please feel free to polish it up with me. Thanks again and Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to give you a heads up that I'll give comments for this article tomorrow. I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks a ton Notecardforfree! delldot ∇. 07:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have deleted the article on NPlot. The reason stated indicates misunderstanding of the subject (refer to the Talk page; - update - didn't even manage to write anything on the Talk page because the article was deleted before I could do anything, so I will put the argument about contesting deletion on my talk page). Can you please revert the action so that the article is available for eventual improvement. Thanks, Ajgorhoe (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ajgorhoe, sorry for the speed of that speedy! Sure, I can undelete it so you can work on it. How about somewhere in your userspace like User:Ajgorhoe/NPlot at least until it's got a few references for verifiability. You're right that the A7 web was not the right justification so that was my mistake to go with that, but wouldn't you agree that it should meet the General notability guideline by showing it's been written about in reliable sources? Thank you for bringing this up, I'm sure your contributions will be valuable. delldot ∇. 15:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi delldot, thanks for your response. It would be useful for me if you save the article to User:Ajgorhoe/NPlot because I will not be able to work on it soon. I planned to add a broader set of information about .NET libraries because I think that software libraries are poorly covered in general and this would also be useful to attract other contributions in the area (to move things from a standing point). But my stock of time is limited and I already spent this weekend's stock on studying formalities, in particular to figure out how to start and evolve work without parts being removed before they get close enough to their final form.

Of course I agree that articles should meet notability guidelines, verifiability, accuracy etc. Exactly for this reason the amount of work invested in this short piece of information was rather large, but further work would be needed (not in terms of deletion, if I try to make my point) and I don't think I should feel solely responsible or "called" for this mission. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and people can't claim parts of it. In order for an article to reach maturity and good quality, it is necessary that more people get involved and it takes some time and iteration. In the particular case, the article would have most value when connected to other related information (which would advance the whole area) and this should be built here. But this will not happen (it hasn't by now with exception of some specific areas such as numerical libraries) if a modest start is not possible. Regards, Ajgorhoe (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will undelete it as soon as I'm home in front of a computer, rather than on my mobile. Thanks Ajgorhoe for the time you've put in so far and I'm sorry for not recognizing that right away. I see your point about having something there as a basis for future work. How about adding just a reference or two to get it up to a minimum standard, then moving it to article space and soliciting help on the relevant WikiProject talk page? Or even soliciting help while it's still in the user space? Maybe we can find some active editors in the field as well, and leave them personal messages. I don't mind helping with some of this, but adding the references is probably going to be difficult for me due to the aforemand unfamiliarity with the topic. Peace, delldot ∇. 21:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advise. I'll have to leave it aside for some time, but later the undeleted article will be useful and I'd try to improve it according to your suggestions. I didn't think of soliciting help on the relevant WikiProject talk, and it might be a good idea, especially with a broader work on libraries which I would like to see pushed forward. I will probably come back for some advice later. Regards, Ajgorhoe (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I'm happy to help and advise however I can, just let me know. here's the undeleted article, I'm interested to see what you do with it once you have time. Peace, delldot ∇. 02:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you give Delta Dawn (murder victim)‎ a look-over/copy-edit? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Paul, what do you have in mind? A GA-type review where I say what I think is missing in terms of comprehensiveness and everything? Or more of just a straight copyedit/prose check? You want me to bring up issues I find on the talk page, or just fix stuff myself? delldot ∇. 19:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both review and bring up issues and if you can fix stuff yourself where you can, that would be good. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, will do. delldot ∇. 19:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of the work you did to carry out Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 28#Category:Populated places by year of establishment subcats. I would hope that a bot could do some of the heavy lifting but it appears like a task that had to be done manually. Liz 18:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you so much for that Liz! It's rare enough to have someone acknowledge grunt work like that (which actually I enjoy way more than is probably healthy). When I saw the orange notice I literally said "oh dear" out loud because I was sure it was either someone letting me know I screwed something up or that there was a more intelligent way to have done that. delldot ∇. 18:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I use to spend a lot of time in CfD discussions when I first started regularly editing in 2013. So I thought when I became an admin last summer, I thought I'd be doing a lot of work in CfD field. But while I am comfortable closing discussions, I find the instructions to carry out actions like mergers so confusing compared to other deletion areas that I've worked in more straight-forward admin activities. If you'd ever be willing to walk me through it, I'd appreciate it!

Oh, and I noticed all of the work you were doing because I regularly tag empty categories and some of those categories you deleted were empty and kept appearing on the database report list every morning but were left untouched because they were involved in a CfD discussion. So, now they be gone! Liz 20:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I'm happy to help however I can. (Although I reserve the right to have no idea what I'm doing at all times.) Actually if we can identify specific parts of WP:CFDAI that are confusing, maybe we can make some useful edits and recruit some more help! delldot ∇. 06:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Spinal cord injury page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shooting of Anthony Hill, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Anthony Hill was naked, unarmed and suffering from mental illness when he was shot by police in the U.S. state of Georgia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Anthony Hill. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! delldot ∇. 04:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		WikiProject Disability Barnstar
		Awarded for hard work, stamina and quality of work done in creating and improving Sexuality after spinal cord injury to Featured Article quality and thus contributing to WikiProject Disability. Awarded by: Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this and for all the help! delldot ∇. 19:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chest trauma has been nominated for merging with Template:Trauma. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for your guidance on avoiding paraphrasing at Talk:Dibatag/GA1, and also for promoting the article! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 10:15, 31 March 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) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Delldot.

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) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Toco Ramphastos. Since you had some involvement with the Toco Ramphastos redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Loopy30 (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Sexuality after spinal cord injury article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 1 February 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 3, 2017. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you so much! :D delldot ∇. 21:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1569 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2020 (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.

---

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Acropora.PNG, 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.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killing_of_Patrick_Harman. Zazpot (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Please join us for a Wiknic at Tribble Mill Park in Lawrenceville, GA on Sunday, August 26, 2018 between 11:00 am - 2:00 pm. Sign up here. —Ganeshk (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:29, 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]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm editing and am trying to find a full citation. I found you added this in 2013. Would you be able to remember what book this was from? Thanks.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, good catch. I was mostly editing Slavery_in_Haiti, I must have forgotten to copy over the actual citation. Chrisp, P. (2006). DK Discoveries: Christopher Columbus. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-7566-8616-1. Retrieved 5 March 2013.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

LMK if you catch anything else! delldot ∇. 03:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Cytoplasmic dynein.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

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

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

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aw thank you! Lovely to get. delldot ∇. 14:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Delldot! I have been working on the Good Article review of Diaphragmatic rupture at Talk:Diaphragmatic rupture/GA2. Both my review and Talk:Diaphragmatic rupture/GA1 have identified that prose that you wrote in the article in July 2008 has been plagiarised by an "predatory academic journal" called "Open Access Text". Their website can be found at [1], the plagiarising text in question can be found at [2], and their email address is info@oatext.com. You can see my review for a full breakdown of this. As you published your edits under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License, Open Access Text must attribute Wikipedia as the source of the information. Whilst I would gladly pursue the copyright claim myself, it has to come from a writer of the original text - you. For now, I have listed Open Access Text at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/MNO#Open Access Text, but if you wish to pursue a copyright claim, then I would suggest following the advice at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process - I would be happy to support you with this. Hoping you are well, Bibeyjj (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for letting me know! I don't have a lot of time these days. Do you think it is helpful to WP to pursue these copyright claims? Is that an ongoing project? How much of a time commitment do you think it is to pursue it? Thanks again for the note and working on the review. delldot ∇. 01:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Delldot! I completely understand. It is your decision whether you feel it worthwhile to pursue a claim, and it is fine to leave things as they are. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is a message letting you know that Diaphragmatic rupture, a page that you created, has passed as a good article; see Talk:Diaphragmatic rupture for comments about the article. aeschylus (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (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,

I saw that you reviewed Black American Sign Language a few years ago. I think it's the latest article about a language that was promoted to the FA status. I've just listed Levantine Arabic for peer-review, in hopes of bringing it to featured article status and that's why I'd love to get your feedback on this peer-review (and maybe, if you have time, get more help on the nomination process).

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Best, A455bcd9 (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to have a look soon. delldot ∇. 20:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you delldot! A455bcd9 (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi delldot, I answered your comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/Levantine Arabic/archive2 and I'd love to know your opinion.

Best, A455bcd9 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello delldot, I answered your comments from last month. If you have time to look at them, it would be awesome! Otherwise let me know and I'll try to find another reviewer. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi delldot,

Thanks to your PR, I improved the article and then nominated it for FAC. I would love if you could have a second look at the article and provide some feedback. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah shoot I'm sorry I didn't get to this in time! I hope it gets another chance and I can have time to weigh in. delldot ∇. 14:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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)

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.

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

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful, thank you! delldot ∇. 12:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Contrecoup has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unneccesary disambiguation page, only 1 link has its own page

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

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

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

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Roosevelt has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neurotrauma has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.

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

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. Changes to Wikipedia's software have made your current custom signature invalid.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error or obsolete HTML tags.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, you can fix your signature, or you can do nothing.

If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah hey thank you! delldot ∇. 02:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mental status examination has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2024 (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]