|"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.|
Talk page archives
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SIGOS, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages San Mateo and App (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Another request to delete older graphicsEdit
Nyttend, I hope this message finds you well. Like before, I find myself asking for your help in deleting old versions of a graphic I kept editing due to either mistakes or new information I found that lead me to rework the graphic. So, if you don't mind, could you please delete all the old version of File:Example US Army Special Forces Recognition Bars-Historical.svg? Someone has already transferred it to Commons before I was finished making correction; hopefully move to Commons does not change the rules on what you can do to help me with this. Best regards, McChizzle (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
New message from TriptothecottageEdit
ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit
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 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
notice of ANI discussionEdit
Orphaned non-free image File:APPLCOR.jpgEdit
Thanks for uploading File:APPLCOR.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey Nyttend, I'm going to unblock Icodense99 as Johannes has come to their defense as requested lifting of the block as well. I'm adding a note to stay away however and let Johannes remove the edits they wish to remove to prevent this again. Good block, but I think the message got to them, and "time served" works in this case. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
In the discussion about Materialscientist (WP:AN3) you used the work ‘harrasing’. For one, I clearly stated that I did not have a view on the subject and was simply asking a question and secondly, none of the users were harassing the admin, only stating their opinion. Please read all replies thoroughly before accusing someone of something they didn’t even do. Willbb234 (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- If you did not feel the message concerened you, then you should remind yourself that the message was a general note to those questioning Materialscientist actions. About an actual fact, that Materialscientist used tools within his disgression as an admin.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing about this discussion was questioning Materialscientist’s actions so I’m not sure why you included that in this discussion. Also, I didn’t feel as if the message was ‘a general note’ as it specifically pointed fingers at a small number of Wikipedians and accused them of something they didn’t do. It sounds as if you agree with me as the Wikipedians involved in the discussion were questioning Materialscientist’s actions and not ‘harrasing’ the admin as Nyttend claimed.