HI anthere
my datials you asked for
Oguntimehin .A. Ariyo a born in Lagos, graduated from Auchi polytechnic Edo state, majored in painting 2000.He has a post graduate Diploma in Education [PGDE]2006.He further studied photography from Nigeria institute of journalism [photo journalism]2010.He is a recipient of state Merit Award From Benue State Nigeria .
He has facilitated various Art and Photography workshops and seminars, with University of Lagos Sponsored by [OYASAF] Omooba Yemisi Shyllon Art Foundation, Greenhouse Art Gallery. E.t.c .He was a jury in Ufuk Dialogue Foundation Organizer of The Art for Peace Project in Turkey. He has documented most fast disappearing festivals in Nigeria and Benin Republic. He has more than 55 thousand shot of indigenous shoots of Nigeria cultural festival
Presently he works as an Artist, Documentary Photographer, and He is a free Lance Photojournalist.
Professional Membership society of Nigeria Artist
Artzero group AWARD Benue state Merit Award Winner 2002 1st runner up winner of photography competition of Omooba Yemisi Shyllon Art Foundation,[oyasaf]
Hi Florence, this might interest you: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikegodwin. It's attracted a fair amount of controversy, with some people suggesting that Jimbo, in his role as a steward and board member, should simply grant Mike Godwin administrator rights directly, rather than making him go through an RfA. There's also a thread on the bureaucrat's noticeboard. Me and Cecropia have declined to speedy promote him. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. --Deskana(banana)18:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hmmmm, you may ask a question here if it is relevant to the english Wikipedia policy. It probably is not confidential. For other businesses, you can check the contact page on http://wikimediafoundation.org
Hi. This is a quick note about the editing of the Johann Hari page, which I know you've helpfully intervened on in the past.
As reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described Hari as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" (when in fact he is an Amnesty International award-winner), inserted fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about.
This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me. This user is now insisting on his right to reinsert the claims that hari farbricated a story, sourcing them to a magazine that wiki administrators have already said is not reliable. What can I do in this situation? - DavidR81.129.156.20212:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dave r has been smearing me with these accusations, one of which is false, the other taken out of context, and utterly irrelevant. He has also posted this defamatory message on multiple other user talk pages;
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. This is starting to feel a little like harassment, and not in a good way. FelixFelixtalk14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, sorry about the coffee. How do you like our article? Can you add some of the URLs in your presentation to the external links section? I also know you said you were interested in getting the presentation reworked with some wiki details, we have one or two contributors who'd be interested in doing that - so if I can point them in the right direction... --Brianmc —Preceding comment was added at 10:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I address you to ask for your intervention in a delicate subject.
As you may know, there is a proposal to close the Volapük Wikipedia. This wiki recently surpassed 100K articles and therefore its presence was noticeable.
It happens that this voting is based not upon the wiki itself, its lack of active users (they do exist), its lack of contents (it does have contents) but on a war of opinions.
As I could perceive, all this started because users at German Wikipedia didn't like interwikis to Volapük Wikipedia. They discriminate Volapük as an obscure language and therefore shouldn't be visible to German users. So, as they can't choose what interwikis to put on articles (a bot will eventually put them back), they decided that closing vowiki was the only chance they had to remove the interwikis from their articles. In my opinion, destroying other people's work just because you don't want some interwiki on your pages looks to me at least childish. And I thought interwikis were exactly to make other projects' existence known to users. Why ban an interwiki?
Another matter under discussion is that 'article creation with bots is evil'. All users against article creation with bots are voting in favor of closing the vowiki. It's true that vowiki unfortunately has most of its articles created by a bot (mainly cities in USA, France, etc.). But this has become the main issue of the voting: people are voting whether it's acceptable to use bots to create stubs or not, not closing vowik.
In this matter, I don't even think closing a project for this reason is acceptable. One could just eventually delete the articles in this situation and let the project in a healthier state. Why close a project that has the means to advance but just because some other wikis' users are against some of the policies used in vowiki? There are bots creating articles in this fashion in many other wikis: Portuguese (my own native language) is doing it right now, Lombard has done it already, booming their article count. Why is Volapük any different? I'm afraid that, if Volapük Wikipedia is closed for this reason, a precedent will be opened and the supporters of this closure will advance to close other smaller wikis (as it seems to be their will).
I would like to reassure you by saying that at this moment, no articles are being created by a bot. Moreover, many of the 1000 top articles are being made by human users.
Volapük was the first artificial language to have impact in human society. It had a thriving time in the 19th century but know it's hardly known to most people. Although there are just a few speakers worldwide nowadays (enwiki mentions around 30 but without citing a source; the yahoo mailing list volapuk although has nearly 200 members), the language still lives and the project has contributors.
As this voting can only end up in keeping the vowiki or closing it, without any other choice, I would like to ask you to intervene. Closing the project is not necessary. It would be the last of the remedies. If one thinks something should be done about it, why not just solve the interwiki problem by allowing projects to reject interwikis to other projects (if this is acceptable), and why not eventually delete bot created stubs to world cities, reducing the article count drasticaly?
I have my conscience clean: I adhered recently to the Volapük Wikipedia project. The bot created articles were already there and many were being added by another user and still I continued working on it. Whether it may be questionable if that user acted correctly with the creation of these stubs by a bot, it's no reason to close a project for good.
Hi there (ou bonjour, si on veut parler en francais :P). It popped into my head while I was skimming through the server list that it would be a great idea to offer server vanity naming of numbered servers (like "srv14" to "joanne," "mouse," or whatever) to high-dollar donations as a token of appreciation to people who donate large sums of money to the project.
I would suggest, however, in the interest of keeping everything in the spirit of the wiki, that there be a couple tentative restrictions on naming, like no corporate names, no obscenity, no trademarks, and basically all of the stuff prohibited in username policy. Plus, due to DNS concerns, names would need to be constrained to a-z, 0-9, and hyphens. Tech-wise, nothing would need to change except a redundant forward entry to the IP-- and even that would be optional, since most of the servers are private networks and wouldn't make sense to resolve outside the network. Though, the marketing value of people being able to say, "I helped run a server at wikipedia" is pretty cool, particularly as new servers are purchased. We might even consider sending the donor a picture of the server just for fun. :)
Obviously, the donor wouldn't own the server or even have access to it, so it's really just a superficial token of thanks-- kind of like naming of buildings on college campuses and such. Anyway, I just figured I'd toss that idea your way and let you to decide to either run with it or toss it. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk /23:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
eheh, funny idea :-) I remember that a long time ago, I insisted that a new server be called from a french female encyclopedist. Outcome, the server never worked. I think it is just as with boat. Never name a server a female name if you do not want to bring disaster on the boat. Anyway, yeah, the idea is worth exploring. We do that with famous rose variety. Why not our database servers ? Anthere17:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you're already aware of this matter, but with ArbCom elections approaching there has been some discussion about whether the Foundation Access to nonpublic data policy should be interpreted as excluding persons under 18 from appointment to ArbCom. Although they would not need access to checkuser or oversight tools, the usual discussions between Arbitrators are likely to expose them to private data. The discussion is occuring at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007#Age limit? - WMF input may be helpful. WjBscribe21:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite surprised to be asked - thank you. I'd be happy to act in the role if needed, although I worry that I might be a touch too controversial for the role. If you think otherwise, however, I'd be fine with it, and wouldn't necessarily mind ceasing to act as a CU. As for the confirmation of identity - you should already have it, as I sent a copy of my drivers license to the foundation when the board passed the resolution that all CUs had to have confirmed identities. Rebecca (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Rebecca; I'm touched (and surprised) to be asked. I would also be happy and willing to serve on the commission, and would have no problem ceasing to act as a checkuser for the duration. Per the board's resolution I sent a copy of my driver's license to the foundation last summer. Best, Mackensen(talk)22:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anthere. The statss of the Moldovan Wikipedia was not changed until this day. Allthough the decision was to close this Wikipedia, see [10]. The site is blocked from editing, but it was never deleted. Still, if it can't be deleted, than please (if you can) revert the use of "Moldovan language interface" to the Romanian or English interface so that the first page displayed it would be the "Main Page", and not the current "Паӂина принчипалэ".
Editarea paginilor în această Wikipedie este blocată. Vă invităm să vizitaţi http://ro.wikipedia.org.
There was no way our checkusers could know about the mess at the french wikipedia.
Threats, even of violence, are not unheard of here.
The policy is clear that checkusers are to operate strictly within the bounds of the policy. The user was asking that he be given the ip address.
There is no policy to fall back on here.
The user was told to contact his local law enforcement which is only way a complaint can be initiated.
What exactly would the checkuser report have revealed that could have been used by anyone other than law enforcement? While you make not like some of what goes on at english, your comments in a RFCU was, in my opinion misplaced. If we are to loosen the CU policy, it should come through a thorough community debate. I suspect we should have some policy in place for these events and would support such. But I think your comments were not productive in this case. I appreciate that you are the ED and I am just volunteer, but I do appreciate your reading these comments. Thank you. -JodyB talk01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused by what you say, because at the time I read the page, the text was fully mentionning the reference to the french wikipedia, with a link to the page where there is a full report of the whole situation. At the time I read the page, there was also a link to the meta page where the issue is mentionned. And there was also specifically a mention saying "no checkuser needed" (which is definitly surprising to me). There was no recommandation to the guy to go send an email to OTRS, nor suggestion to go to the police. It simply suggested to report the case to the admins. What can the admins do in this case ? What bugs me really is that, if we take a step backward, here is someone coming over to report a death threat and his concerns appear dismissed.
I have no problem with the CU saying that they can not give the information directly to the user. I am perfectly fine with this and I appreciate all of you respect the privacy policy. This is great. What I am concerned about is that to the one asking, it is just a dismissal.
JodyB, I am sorry you feel disappointed. But 1) according to the request I saw, CU could know about the mess at the french wiki, 2) threats of violence, even if usual, are wrong, 3) I did not say to give him the address, I said to do a CU (my fault, I was not specific in my words sufficiently at all, I should have said "investigate and discuss", sorry, my fault, 4) you are correct, my bad, 5) when I wrote my comment, no one had told him to contact the police. So you are right on some points and I am right on others. Anthere (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC):::[reply]
I am now much more reluctant to check accounts, due to your own calls for tightening of the usage of checkuser on the English Wikipedia, specifically. Cases do not normally contain requests to divulge IPs, which is something that the WMF protects under the Privacy Policy. As such checks can be carried out so that they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Privacy Policy. At the time of this request, no mention was made of contacting law enforcement, so what section of the policy should I be releasing the data under? Section 5 perhaps, but again no mention was made of formulating an abuse complaint. I understand totally the seriousness of this case (I've had death threats from users in my area in the past), but I'm getting increasingly confused by simultaneous calls for more privacy and more reluctant use of the tool, and calls to release data where it does not neatly fit into one of the allowed circumstances of the Privacy Policy. People will bite my head off if I say too much, and people will also bite my head off if I say too little, and these areas overlap so much that I'm getting bitten no matter what I do. I'm getting messages from you to release data (even when it doesn't fit nicely into the Privacy Policy) and messages from checkusers on other projects saying I'm violating the privacy policy even when I don't actually release any data, and referring said cases to the Ombudsman Commission for investigation. Frankly, I'm not only extremely frustrated, I'm extremely confused. Perhaps the policy should be rewritten, so that checkusers aren't left feeling so confused and frustrated. --Deskana(talk)02:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deskana, I am very sorry because I was not polite enough. I should have voiced my concerns differently. I think your reaction of not giving the information was perfectly right. What I was annoyed at was the answer he got. Frankly, when a good editor is scared and looking for support, it was not really a supportive answer. There is no need to rewrite the policy on such point, but I simply wish to avoid seeing good users quitting the project just because they are scared and not getting support. I would hope so much to see that we can give decent answers to threats :-(((( Anthere (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could do with being less abrupt. Unfortunately that's a product of the fact that I deal with a lot of cases, and of the fact that I can be quite abrupt anyway, even when I didn't mean to. I'll try to be less abrupt in future. Is that your only concern? I am perfectly happy to try to address that. I'm sorry for the somewhat snarky post of mine above, since seems we agree on the privacy issue. --Deskana(talk)18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthere. I'm User:Alison, a relatively new CheckUser here on enwiki. Per the above case, I took advice from Mike Godwin, our legal counsel, and am assured that I can not reveal personal indentifying information, including IP addresses, at this time without a court order. I'm really sorry for what has happened here; it's disgusting and totally inexcusable. Sickening.
What I have done is followed up on the case and done my utmost to assist and to reveal as much as we legally can here to address this editor's very genuine and serious concerns. There is no information I can glean from the IP address as to where the location of the offending editor is, so I cannot state where they may or may not be. I found one other account which is now also blocked. I wish there was more we could do here but there really isn't. I'm so sorry - Alison❤04:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthere. I wonder if you could take a look at Gaia philosophy. It is a bit worse for the wear, and could do with gently removing some of the bits that are really word for word repetition from other sections of the article, and other smoothing over of the prose to flow more freely. I remember you thought it was important to have a nice article about it here on wikipedia.
Right now it is a bit rough around the edges, and should be given a bit of care. I may help a bit, but since I don't know the subject matter, any things which are better improved by changing the structure of the article, would be beyond me, and in the cases where the same text is in two places, I likely as not wouldn't know which is the best place for it. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to take so long getting a welcome message out to you. I've been dealing with the "real world" for the last couple months and therefore on a sort of informal wikibreak. Please look around the project page from time to time for things that need work and also add things of your own that you notice that others might want to help with or comment on. Do you have any particular interests? I notice you are collecting resources, are you familiar with the citation forms on Wikipedia?--Doug.(talk • contribs)01:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't let a little grumpiness at WP:AN discourage you or your developer. The vast majority of en.wikipedians very much appreciate both your efforts, regardless of our position on one side or the other in our tea cup. --A. B.(talk)17:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way to correct a problem is to correct the reality and not just spin-doctor the issue. You want wikipedia to republish a reliable published report that wikia and wikimedia are seperate? Then get a reliable publication to say so. New York Times would be good. A news release from an involved party saying so is worthless. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that you are in violation of WP:COI, and it will be an embarrassment before the mainstream media when this surfaces. You may wish to consider "oversighting" your more recent edits to the article space proper. -- 72.94.165.206 (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I BEG YOUR PARDON ? Oversight should be used only for important matters. Such as violation of private information on people. Or recipe to make a nuclear bomb. Anything really dangerous. There is nothing dangerous in what I wrote. Everything is correct, even if Wikipedia prefers not to report reality. There is nothing for me to be ashamed of. I only reported reality. And this is what I already say to the press anyway. So, it makes no sense to oversight what I wrote. I hope no one would have the bad idea to do that, because I would not only consider that being censorship, but in a more pragmatic way, a real misuse of the tool. Anthere (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Anthere's wish to clarify this based on her own knowledge of the matter is totally understandable. Its is why we should always be sensitive to people who point out that our articles are incorrect on matters about which they have personal knowledge. However, our policy on verifiability requires that material be referenced to third party sources. Where those sources have got it wrong, we are at the moment required to also have it wrong. That is unappealing, but the alternative is to open to door to a lot of the original research we struggle to avoid. Although not entirely satisfactory, that is the position we are at. Anthere has agreed not to edit the article further, I think that is wise. But there is no scandal here, nor should anyone be embarassed. If this sparks further debate about how we should deal with clear errors in the references used in Wikipedia articles it is a good thing. Especially as the print media is now getting rather lazy at using Wikipedia as a source. We face the problem that incorrect original research can be added to an article, picked up by the press and printed as fact, and that someone who then tries to correct the information is rebutted by another user who is able to quote a third party source to support the incorrect information. That is a scenario that must have seemed fairly unlikely when our verifiability and original research policies were drafted. WjBscribe04:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with the article in its current state. Anthere (talk)
Hi Anthere, I saw you express some frustration at the Verifiability policy. This is just to let you know that material that's self-published by Wikia e.g. a press release, or a statement on its website, is allowed to be used as a source in the article. The policy allows self-published material that was written by the subject of the article — with some restrictions, which are listed here — and as that part of the article directly concerns the Foundation, a press release from the Foundation would be acceptable too.
The point of the "verifiability, not truth" provision is just to make sure that Wikipedia is never a first publisher of information. We always need to be able to point to where we took our material from. It helps to keep the project safe.
Okay, I'm setting the troll meter to "2.5" here (please don't permaban me!), but... the exceptions that SlimVirgin points to above include:
it does not involve claims about third parties
So, if Wikia issues a press release that posits claims about the Wikimedia Foundation, isn't that such an exception? Similarly, if the Wikimedia Foundation issues a release about Wikia, that would be a third party claim, as well.
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject
Now here, we're getting into a pretty tight logical spiral into oblivion, right? If Wikia is "not related" to the Wikimedia Foundation, how can the claim be anything but "not directly related" to the subject? Likewise for the reverse scenario.
Sorry, but why doesn't Jimbo call up one of his many sycophants friends in the mainstream media, and get them to stake their professional reputation on exactly defining how unrelated Wikia is to the Wikimedia Foundation, and then we'll have a neutral, independent source to cite here in our article? -- 68.87.42.110 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder if you would be able to advise on the best way to get clarification of the Foundation Licensing policy? The points I've raised here concern historical images and some mentions I've seen of a deadline. What I've said over there is as follows:
"[What] about this bit of the policy? "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events..." - it says right there: "to illustrate historically significant events". [...] Also, I've seen people say that there is a deadline of "March 23, 2008" to sort all this out, but in fact that deadline is currently written as a subclause of point 6. ie. It only applies to projects without an EDP."For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken [...] By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." This may just be a mistake in the layout of the Licensing Policy, but if this is so, it needs to be changed and the change widely advertised."
As well as the 'deadline' confusion, my concern is also over historical images. I would be grateful if you could bring these points to the attention of the board if this needs clarification.
The above was written in August 2007 (the bit about historical images can be ignored for the moment - it is the deadline that needs clarification at board level) and left here, but got no response (as far as I can tell). For obvious reasons, it would be good if you, or other members of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, could comment at the Administrators' noticeboard discussion, or find your way to where-ever the discussion ends up. I've notified the other Board Members where they have en-wiki user pages. Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response at the AN thread. I've replied over there, but wanted to repeat one specific point here: is it at all possible for you to make sure the other board members I contacted (and Erik) are aware of this, and possibly the former board members you mention if you think they would be interested)? I know some of them may not check their en-wiki pages very often, and I don't have accounts on the other projects. Obviously what you said may be enough, but I like to know that they were at least aware of what I'd said and don't discover my message months later! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarification on AN and for contacting the other board members. Your comments have clarified the situation significantly for me. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the article on agriculture really sucks. That's a shame, this is just such an obvious article available in any encyclopedia" (with "Agriculture" just an example)."
yeah. Well, I just found another argument to speed up the process of changing the registration. It mentions an email address which is non fonctionnal... ouch Anthere (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you go through all your images that you uploaded and remove any others that fall under the same situation as well? Images like Image:RhodoP.jpg. Thanks for understanding. MECU≈talk13:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your post in the Village Pump (Policy) about the WMF board resolution on changes to the privacy policy (I somehow missed the original post a week ago and just saw it in the archive right now). Thank you very much for adding this item to the board's agenda and for acting on my proposal! I really appreciate it! Nsk92 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the board and community and staff are discussing an oath of office for the board members. Perhaps you will find http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris/oath_of_office.html to be a source of inspiration. I'm very sorry that you have chosen to leave the board; I think we would be in much worse shape if not for you. Thank you for all you have done. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well, this is one of the most random discussion I am starting but I couldn't help it. I was browsing (well, thats all you do when you are new to wikipedia, right?) through one of the many pages of wikipedia when I came across this list [13] and was shocked to find my name already (even though I hadn't inserted there). Anyways, the only other name for 10th of September was yours and so I decided to have a glance at your userpage and what I find is a personality to succeed Jimbo himself. So thought would drop you a message. Wanted you to know that it feels really nice to find such a great personality I share my bday with.
Cheers. Tarun2k (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I noticed your photo on Wikimedia commons of two men wearing "Saami" costumes. This photo is now used as an illustration in several wikipedia articles on the Saami peoples in different languages.
Unfortunately, the costumes worn by the men in the pictures seem not be Saami costumes - they are instead fake costumes created by the tourism industry in Lapland. The decorations in authentic Saami costumes are very clearly defined, and reveal from which area the person wearing the costume comes from.
Moreover, I should point out that fake Saami costumes are used by the tourism industry in Finland only, not in the other Nordic countries. This practice is widely concidered misuse of the costume and insulting by the Saami. Hence, this photo is not a suitable illustration of Saami costumes; maybe a comment should be added to the photo in commons stating that the costumes are not authentic Saami costumes. Best, --AAikio (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hello, I answered on your talk page. Cheers Anthere (talk)
Hi Anthere. Way back, on 23 October2002, you created the original version of the article on trophic dynamics. If you look at what the current version has to say about global primary biomass, you will see that it still uses the same figures that you originally entered. This may have receded too far into distant history – but can you tell me your source for these figures? (I can't find sources more recent than 1975!) --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost I would like to sincerely ask you for your help. Your input and patience is appreciated. I want to bring to your attention this. HD86 has made numerous comments such as "The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form." These comments are inflammatory, racist, unhistprical and outrageous. This user continues to deny that a whole race even exists. He needs to be wiki disciplined. This is unacceptable inflammtory denialist behavior. The equivalent of his statments would be that jews or arabs do not exist. Do you not see the point. His languge is very hateful and dimeaning to those of us involved in the project. If you take a look at his history he has similar incompetent statemetns regarding other controverisal topics. I ask for assistance in order to remove this hateful user from this discussion. He has denied the existence of an entire race that through ample ancient and modern evidence has existed for thousands of years. I will be waiting for your response. Ninevite (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, no such article. And given the mess at monetary reform, monetary policy, fractional-reserve banking, criticisms of fractional-reserve banking, that's for a reason - Wikipedia is presently infested with goldbugs. To deal with this nasty POV problem, and incidentally save the world by spreading accurate information on how our monetary system is presently eating our ecosystems alive to spew out crap, we, trolls, respectfully (!) request your attention to this and to underlying biodiversity pages to be sure that monetary policy, natural capital, nature's services and so on are accurately linked. You did amazing work getting the ecology and biodiversity stuff together years ago, now it's time to use your world class troll herding skills to save Wikipedia's reputation for accurate representation of the current monetary system - and crisis. Because doing this right might well save us all.
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Anthere trees2.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Anthere Sahara 2004.JPG. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#F8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the Wiki Project Meteorology, Climatology and Ecosystems, I was wondering if you would be able to help on the project?
It's aimed to be a project to bring many under one label, as currently there are many projects under diferent titles that have similar purposes.
Help would be much apreciated. Mark999 16:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Papillote.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Papillote.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Papillote.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dead. I was hosted by a stupid hosting company, which succeeded to disperse the blog content on two different databases. Whilst I can click on a button to say "download a dump of my blog database", I am completely unable to save two databases contents then past it back together to have only one. I have tried without success for 6 months and could not find anyone to help me. Finally, last week, I tried to save the content the best I could and entirely closed my account at this fabulous hosting company. When I have time, I'll try to restore it, but I have little hope to retrieve it. At least, I have a "text" version of all the posts... and I'll paste some of my past post somewhere. I intend to open a new one in the very near future at the same original web address. I might create a sort of "archive" section to dump the old stuff ;)
Meanwhile, my main site is here http://www.devouard.com (in French) and I am currently working on a very simple and quick speaker website, which is already opened (beta version of course) at http://speaker.devouard.com (in English).
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:WikiNouvelAn.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
According to a rumor, it seems a book will be published soon (in French), which will contain chunks of texts clearly from Wikipedia.
According to some, it will be the first time, but I have a vague memory that there was already a book published which plagiarized wikipedia, but I do not remember more than this. Anyone remembers ?
Interesting. I know of several books which copied Wikipedia content explicitly with citations as to the source (linking back to the project) but I'm not aware of any blatant plagiarism in the form of a published book. I also know of several websites which have plagiarized content that I explicitly have written, some of them without any sort of recognition as to the source. I've also had some of my photos that I've uploaded for use on Wikipedia plagiarized as well without acknowledgment, and in fact with assertion of copyright under other terms demanded.
It wouldn't surprise me if this has happened in the past, as I've seen almost everything you can imagine in regards to copyright violations and even assertion of copyright on content that clearly was not written by the claimant or even authorized by the original actual author. What annoys me the most are those publishers who assert copyright on public domain materials... which in America is surprisingly not really illegal. Instead it it up to the person who wishes to republish public domain materials to research the copyright and note what the original content actually said, essentially ignoring copyright in that case and saying "sue me, I dare you" to those who would try to enforce such copyright. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to remind people that there exists a backward copy vio template for use on the talk page, were a WP article has been published else where without proper attribution. This template aims to prevent editors from rashly tagging valid WP content as copyvio when the situation is really the other way around.--Aspro (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!
It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!
Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate.
I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 community HERE, 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 name HERE 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Agricultural Practices 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 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 template from the top of the article. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here
This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!
View the full newsletter
Background
Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.
Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.
An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.
Progress so far
Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner.
Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.
As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)
Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.
Proposed changes
Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:
1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.
Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?
This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.
3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.
Hello, Anthere/Archives 2021. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. Since you are the first who wrote on my talk page 23 November 2002 I want to invite you to the Ten Year Society.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Katogo (food), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Staple (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.
Hello! As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Wikipedia:Voice intro project. Please feel free to ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. --1Veertje (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
J'ai donc troqué mon titre de chaise du bureau de Wikimedia Foundation pour un joli titre de member of the Advisory board(conseil de conseillers ? conseil des sages ?).
Chair, id estChairman, the highest officer of an organized group
(Membre du Conseil consultatif de la Fondation Wikimedia ou Membre du Comité consultatif de la Fondation Wikimedia)
J'ai décidé fin 2012 d'arrêter mon implication comme vice-présidente de son conseil d'administration de .
Oguntimehin .A. Ariyo a born in Lagos, graduated from Auchi polytechnic Edo state, majored in painting 2000. He has a post graduate Diploma in Education [PGDE] 2006. He further studied photography from Nigeria institute of journalism [photo journalism] 2010. He is a recipient of state Merit Award From Benue State Nigeria 2002. He has facilitated various Art and Photography workshops and seminars, with University of Lagos Sponsored by [OYASAF] Omooba Yemisi Shyllon Art Foundation, Greenhouse Art Gallery. E.t.c . He was a jury in Ufuk Dialogue Foundation Organizer of The Art for Peace Project in Turkey. He has documented most fast disappearing festivals in Nigeria and Benin Republic. He has more than 55 thousand shot of indigenous shoots of Nigeria cultural festival. Presently he works as an Artist, Documentary Photographer and is a free Lance Photojournalist.
Professional Membership
society of Nigeria Artist
Artzero group
MERIT AWARD
Benue state Merit Award Winner 2002
1st runner up winner of photography competition of Omooba Yemisi Shyllon Art Foundation,[oyasaf]
Hi Anthere,thanks for your prompt response. I don't only want to work on only Hannah Cudjoe's article I added my name under Team Ghana because I realized Ghana had a lot of women to be written on and I wanted to contribute on all of them.These are;Hannah Cudjoe Elsie Owusu,Ama Nkrumah,Afia Kobi Serwaa Ampem(my Queenmother) Sylvia Boye ,Mary Chinery Hesse,Peace Ayisi Otchere,Sophie Oboshie Doku,Sussana Al-Hassan Regards--Rberchie (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthere. Lane Rasberry just pointed me to this project. I'm presently working on a pilot with BMJ to provide expert review for our best medical articles. We're in the middle of the first review (Parkinson's disease) and, if that goes well, we'll be doing more. I see Malaria is on your list. There is some interest at WikiProject medicine in getting Malaria up to featured standard and then having BMJ review it. If you're interested, I'll keep you informed on how that goes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read your mail regarding the program proposition from the program chair just now. I didn't check my LinkedIn messages for a long time. I would be glad to participate in Wikimania 2016. I cannot be there for the whole time though because I have responsibilities in Berlin and can't leave for such a long time. I would like to attend for a couple of days though.
Please get back to me regarding the proposition. We could talk on Skype, too. I can send you my skype account through private mail if you'd like to discuss this via skype.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cape Winelands Biosphere Reserve, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conservation, CAPE and Breede River Municipality. 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.
Hi Anthere! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi, I decided to abandon the North African proposal for the time being until there is universal support to run regional contests. I was disturbed by some of the comments you made about not respecting your efforts and several of the Nigerian coordinators from Wiki Loves Women walking out. I got the impression that you all thought I was trying to compete or steal your thunder or something, which is really the last thing I'm trying to do. I want to move forward in a way in which I can respect the work and achievements you've already made, and something which can involve you and the others in development on here. Instead I'm planning on launching a general Destubbing contest for the whole continent and ideally splitting the prize money into 52 lots and rewarding the editor who fleshes out the most stub articles from each African nation. So it would benefit every country. If you're interested I'm inviting you to be one of the lead coordinators of it with me.♦ Dr. Blofeld06:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is to notify you about a monthly article writing contest organized by Wikimedia User Group Nigeria in collaboration with Wiki Loves Women to increase the coverage of Nigerian women on Wikipedia! This contest starts on September 20, 2016. Thank you.
Hello, this is to notify you about a monthly article writing contest organized by Wikimedia User Group Nigeria in collaboration with Wiki Loves Women to increase the coverage of Nigerian women on Wikipedia! The theme for the month of September is Women in Entertainment. See the contest page here. Thank you. Delivered: ~~~~~
Hi, WUGN write to thank you for your participation and support in our last contest. We are planning another contest See the page here. We will appreciate if you could join our panel of jury for the contest.Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Anthere. 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.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
This is being sent to you because you are listed as an emeritus member of MedComand an examination of your contribution page suggests that you are still active at en-Wikipedia. MedCom is currently down to three or four active members (there are more than that on the active member list, but some of them have not edited Wikipedia in quite awhile). We have a current case awaiting a mediator which is receiving no response from the request for a mediator sent on the MedCom mailing list a couple of days ago, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians. Would you please consider reactivating your membership, taking that case, or both? If you're interested in doing so and are not still on the MedCom mailing list, please just let me know and I'll reactivate you and add you to the list. Best regards, TransporterMan (talk·contribs) 19:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC) (current MedCom chairperson)[reply]
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing, whether it's a river in Malawi, a Nigerian footballer, or a South African civil rights activist, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. For those of you who signed up to the North African contest, that will hopefully be held in the new year. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
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]
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.
Hello, Anthere. 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.
Hello, Anthere. 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.
Please see my note at now quiet (apparently) editor's talk page. Could this perhaps be worked into orientation materials for new editors? Too quick is too bad?
As a wikignome, I'm afraid I'm being driven mad by witnessing the many ways things go wrong here, through disdain, quickness, ambition, thoughtlessness, obstinacy, etc. I'm trying to sum this up:
Is there yet a general realization that Wikipedia is a proud shining obelisk inscribed with much knowledge in all the scripts of the world, but made of chalk and drenched in a corrosive continual acid rain?
I'm glad you were able to successfully take a break over the holidays, perhaps seeing, actually talking to people rather than poring over text here. I was here because I was sick, had to stay away from people, and figured I was only up to correcting the spelling of Indian place names. How badly could that go wrong? (Down to only ~50 'Hydrabad' vs 'Hyderabad' !) :) Shenme (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Redundant article on a concept completely aligned with Gaia hypothesis. Current content is WP:OR that co-opts other ecological terminology in support of this term. According to Web of Science, only 5 scientific articles have used term "geophysiology" in last 10 years (2 of them in a different context). Propose deletion and WP:REDIR to Gaia hypothesis.
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.
.JPG)
.jpg)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipack Africa Content/List of teams and cyclists in the 2013 Tour de France, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipack Africa Content/List of teams and cyclists in the 2013 Tour de France and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipack Africa Content/List of teams and cyclists in the 2013 Tour de France during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Wishing good health and happiness as we start the new year! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Obituaries
