User talk:Skenmy/Archive 4

Questions for Board candidacy

I appreciate that applications are still open, and the Q&A phase has not been started, but I want to bug you, and I'd invite other Wikinewsies to do so too.

• Do you feel you can genuinely devote the time to the board and not end up as a non-contributor on your home project?
• Are you in favour of more open (potentially radically open) communication between board and community?
• Do you believe that you can fairly represent projects you are not heavily involved in?

I'll be sticking these to all the candidates, so there is no rush to answer. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not know that there was a question period/phase, so I'll reserve that for later. Good luck! Cirt (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions, Brian. I will outdent here for formatting purposes. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 15:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do you feel you can genuinely devote the time to the board and not end up as a non-contributor on your home project?

I do honestly feel that I will be able to continue contributing to Wikinews in as many ways as I am already doing, if not more due to my further involvement with the Foundation and its' dealings.

• Are you in favour of more open (potentially radically open) communication between board and community?

Strongly. It was actually one of my original candidacy statements until I had to trim it to 1200 characters! I believe that having more radically open communication between the board and the community is absolutely imperative, and as a Board member I will strive to have this implemented.

• Do you believe that you can fairly represent projects you are not heavily involved in?

While I am not heavily involved in these projects, I believe I can understand their wants and needs. I am an avid reader of many of the mailing lists hosted by Wikimedia, and I often find myself browsing other project's policy pages to understand the unique needs of every project. As a community-elected board member, I want to be approachable - someone the communities can come to with the problems that require a board action, and act on their behalf - I'm not here to push my own agenda. My candidacy is based on the hope that I will be accepted as someone who can and will represent, fairly, the views of the communities behind me, whether or not I am an active contributor. We are all striving towards the same goals, at the end of the day, and it would be counter-productive to place the needs of one project (my home project, for instance) over another. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 15:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dumps

• Do you wish to comment on the chronic lack of database dumps of the English Wikipedia? -- Cimon Avaro (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming this is a board candidacy question, so I will reply as if it is.

The lack of dumps is concerning, as it hinders outside projects from benefiting from the content that is included in Wikipedia. However, I am sure that the technical team are aware of the issue and are working to resolve it - i'm also aware that this is not the only problem that goes on around Wikimedia and so resources may be stretched elsewhere. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 15:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews Bulletin

Here is the latest Wikinews bulletin. Enjoy!

About the Wikinews Bulletin The Wikinews Bulletin is a free internal newsletter for members of the Wikinews community. The newsletter is "staffed" by several editors, who produce the (more or less) fortnightly publication. Don't hesitate to join our team, or leave us a tip. The publication has produced nine issues.

Anonymous101 :) 12:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Templates

We included that text in the footer because, for the first two years, Wikinews as published as public domain content. It is possible to present content which is alternatively licensed. I'm not sure it's possible to present and use code that is alternatively licensed, but you have a valid point I would need to research. - Amgine | ^t 17:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

11. An obvious copyright violation that is a cut-and-paste exact or near-exact duplicate of content from a copyrighted source. Speedy delete does not apply for public-domain sources, when public domain reprint permission is granted from the original source and specified in the article talk page, or to articles with a third-party edit history.

Are you saying Wikipedia is not copyrighted? - Amgine | ^t 17:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As for whether a template is a program, I suggest you ask the Devs if the template code constitutes a programming language. - Amgine | ^t 17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I believe the templates constitute an exact or near-exact duplicate of content from a copyrighted source, that Wikipedia does not constitute a public domain source, and that permission from the original source to migrate the license to CC-by does not exist. - Amgine | ^t 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said, that's a valid point. I'm not entirely sure it's possible, but it may be. I don't know. (I note the transferrer added text to that effect to one of the templates, today, after the noms.) - Amgine | ^t 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikimag

Hello ! I contact you, to know if I can interview you for the Wikimag which is the equivalent of Sign Post on Wikipedia english. Like for User:Cspurrier. Thank you. - mik@ni 15:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

board election - question regarding Wikiversity

Hello Paul, since you seem more active in this Wikimedia project I wanted to ask you: since there are only a few days left until end of election I personally hope I still can see your response about this question regarding Wikiversity ? Thank you very much in advance, ----Erkan Yilmaz (evaluate me!, discussion) 15:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

CU nomination

I have nominated you for CheckUser. Please accept this nomination, I will canvas for support on the checkuser mailing list, the requirement for 25 votes is pretty high for us as a small project and I would like to think my voice there may gain you a vote or two. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Message from IRC User drivamgr2008Spri (User:Tmalmjursson)

Hi. This is a mass message to those I know on IRC from Wikinews and Wikinews EN. Please refer to my userpage for an important message concerning my IRC Presence. Thanks! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the offer of help, Skenmy. Any assistance is welcomed. I have currently got one of the #Freenode ops, Starnestommy, doing a log check and also a server backup check to find out exactly when and where this incident occurred. I had my password changed without consent, and I know for an absolute fact that I did not do it! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Play.com Live multimedia exposition hosted at Wembley Stadium, England

I restored Play.com Live multimedia exposition hosted at Wembley Stadium, England as the reason you gave for deletion was invalid for a mainspace article that has been published for months and edited by several users. I hope this isn't a problem. Anonymous101^talk 12:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs

If you have not already seen this, please look, comment, and vote both here and on bugzilla. Further assistance such as contact information for Google would be a very useful detail to share and help in petitioning for a listing in their news index. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Category removal

Hello. Could you please explain why you removed the category 'Nationalism' from this story? You characterized it as a "bad categorization", but I don't see why that is the case, given that the key role that separatist nationalism plays in this conflict. SJL (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Edittools - Important Information for Editors

This change/addition is excellent, thank you. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a little assistance

It's been a bit since I've started a Wikinews article. Tried a short one today but a bit out of practice. Would you give it a going-over, please? Animal magnetism. Thanks :) Durova (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WN:RFP

Brianmc (talk · contribs) has posed a question to you [1]. Good luck with the rest of the RfB! Cirt (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on your promotion to bureaucrat. You have the trust of the community. With that trust comes responsibility which I'm sure you'll handle admirably and bureaucratically. :) --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Cirt (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for adding the requested category to the Texas Tech-related news stories. I appreciate the help. --Wordbuilder (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Template help

I'm trying to figure out a way to get this template to be able to reference Wikipedias in different languages, but I can't seem to figure out how. Would you know how to do this? Jade Knight (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Post-election spam

Thank you for supporting me for adminship. :) I'll try to make you glad you did it. So here's a Nadezhda "Harry S. Truman" Durova campaign song. All the best, Durova (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Cover page to the sheet music

I'm Just Wild About Harry

Wikimania Oxford bid

Some time ago you indicated your support of the Oxford 2010 Wikimania Bid, and it was recieved with much gratitude. I now ask if you could could help support our bid by contributing to the bid page that is located at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2010/Bids/Oxford. Now is the critical period for work to continue on the bid as the official bidding period has now started and the jury has been formed.

I do not ask for huge swathes of time, just enough that with eveyrone working on this, it can be completed in time to the high standard required in a bid. For the bid page, an excellent source of information is the travel wiki article on the City of Oxford which is found at: http://wikitravel.org/en/Oxford. The chance of bringing Wikimania to the UK is the best so far and i expect the best chance for many years. With a fresh and stong UK chapter we have an amazing opportunity to put ourselves on the map. If you have any questions, please mail them to the Wikimedia UK mailing list, email me or post a message on my my talk page and i will answer as quickly as possible.

I look forward to working with you on the bid page. Many Thanks. Seddon (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RfB ready to be closed ?

Hello, you are one of the bureaucrats that did not vote in the RfB for TUFKAAP (talk · contribs) (see WN:RFP). I made a comment that I think it is ready to be closed as promote - could you take a look? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, by Brian (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hallo!

I was checking recent changes, and was rather surprised to see your username up there. Nice to see you back after a four-month-long hiatus. Don't forget to move your name at WN:A back to the active list. Cheers. ♪ Tempodivalse ♪ 14:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

At least 3 police officers killed in Pittsburgh shootings

Hi, you seemed to have done something to this page so that I can't sight it -- you seem to have "validated" it or something instead of the usual "sighting", and that causes the sight function to not work. Could you take a look and see what, if anything, is wrong? Thanks, ♪ Tempodivalse ♪ 21:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay, that makes sense. That strikes me as odd, since I've only seen the usual "sighting" when an article is reviewed and published, never "validation". Thanks for your reply, ♪ Tempodivalse ♪ 22:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Adam, an intelligent robot conducts experiments

Thank you for your comments regarding it being a press release and not a news article. What is the difference, I kind of thought press releases were news articles? SriMesh | talk 03:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I read several things, and made some changes. To fix NPOV I filled in the comments brought forward from different Universities, and that should help perhaps the press release where it kind of sounds like an advertisement sort of. So I put it back to review. Let me know if I came close or not to your POV.SriMesh | talk 04:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I didn't put the different Universities originally as they seemed to be not facts pertaining directly to Adam, just theories from across the pond. But, once it was indeed added, it did offer more food for thought for readers about what is excellent and what needs improving on Adam. Kind Regards and thanks for thinking it would be better with that addition. SriMesh | talk 18:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Review process

I dunno if you recall our conversation about the review process, but I did an experiment recently. 60% of article submissions were deleted.

Of the total articles, 10% were deleted with cause (article did not meet WN style guide, etc.) 50% were deleted without basis in policy without receiving a review, or being reviewed and pushed back to develop without basis in policy. One article was deleted after being marked for merge (I don't remember if it was actually merged or not.)

Of the 40% which were eventually published, 75% received no content edits until after publication. Of the 60% of articles deleted, 83.3% received no content edits before deletion that I was aware of (they may have been edited after I last examined them but before their deletion.)

Conclusion: Articles in the review process receive little or no collaboration/editing. 'Reviewers' do not attempt to get articles to publishable status, appear to have limited vocabulary/English skills/grasp of WN:SG/policies. Without visibility (such as listing on the main page), articles in development languish abandoned.

These are the same conclusions as reached after the previous review process. - Amgine | ^t 05:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually make an attempt. A few typos here and there are fixed. Maybe a phrase or two. There has been a lot of bigger breaking stories lately, so IMO those receive more attention. Not to mention policy states that edits can be made at least 24 hours after publication, again depending on the event or type of news.

If there are people intentionally abusing the review process to publish then they should be called out and put up for removal vote or the likes. I don't think it has so much to do with what was and was not published based on the news itself (people will write/edit/etc what interests them more than half the time). Is there going to be a little laziness? Of course and we are all guilty of that on more than one account. Personally I learned my lesson from the Floro incident, which is another story altogether. If we really want to be technical, we can tear the articles from when there was not a review process apart in many respects. IMO the quality of articles are greatly increased than before hand. I think a test of about 10 articles really doesn't constitute too much of a fair test.

Finally, the end result is simple: If people are intentionally violating the review process, then they need to be dealt with accordingly. Period. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion whether or not people are acting intentionally to skew the review process; I suspect some may be sensitive to specific topics (ala Neutralizer) but that's neither here nor there. The problem with this review process is 1) readers are isolated from developing articles, so the developing articles do not get enough eyeballs, and 2) most (more than half) of articles started end up languishing until erased as abandoned unless their sole author pushes them through to publication. Sole-authored articles are effectively a short-circuit of the wiki method; wikinews might just as well be a news blog rather than a wiki.

One concern is that single users present bogus arguments to prevent an article's publication. For example, about 3-5% of professional news headlines are phrased as rhetorical questions, a form which has a long journalistic history. Dozens of Wikinews articles (and hundreds of redirects) are phrased this way. Another example is the alliterative title, envoy equivocates on environment, which was precisely true according to the terms' definitions, yet a user objected to the word 'equivocates' and the article was never published. Disputing a title for an otherwise acceptable article is ludicrous; change the title and publish the work. Argue about the title later.

Yes, community-developed news is not likely to win a lot of awards for clarity and focus. But there's already a lot of blog journalism, some of it very good. And Wikinews is not a blog. - Amgine | ^t 03:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, most of the time people here write, edit and c/e what interests them. 'Short-circuiting' of articles is not a reviewer's/'editors' fault. If someone is not interested, then its likely not to get published. No one is isolated from developing articles. You simply click on the newsroom, which brings you to the articles. Maybe the newsroom needs a better position, I don't know. But no one is cut off from any article(s) unless archived. I don't mind a question in a headline, but as little as it's done, IMO it's still unprofessional and more like writing an editorial than a news article. Wikinews is different and we are not like other news agencies. We strive to do things different from them. I can agree on the title terms, as I often do the same thing. Titles are not important in terms of publishing per se, but its still not nice to change titles after publishing. Blog journalism, as you call it, boils down to what is or is not published and that further boils down to what we are and are not interested in when we write. Yes we have bad stories (in terms what is or is not thought of as news). Yes we have some cheesy ones. But that does not make us a 'blog'. We don't publish editorials or opinions and we don't speculate. So I think in those terms, its quite difficult to say we are or will be a blog.

And as I said earlier, if there re not proper reviews being done, self publishing, or just intentional constant laziness, then it needs to be pointed out and dealt with...period. If those actions are being ignored, or people are too afraid to call them out on their actions, then the review process is useless. But we should not accuse people of doing things wrong if we are not going to call them out on it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh? My comment is that the *process*, not the editors, is broken. For pretty much exactly the reasons you present: contributors are not required to c/e articles they aren't interested in, or review them. If no one is interested, the article is unlikely to be published because it (currently) must pass through a review process before being published. There's little or no benefit to saying one or another editor has done a bad job of reviewing this or that article when it's the review system which is the problem.

A very important issue which you seem to have missed is that most articles which have been published then undergo copy editing and expansion, while most unpublished articles do not. There is a clear and obvious reason for this: more people see them on the main page and read them. By hiding the developing articles away from the reading - and editing - public, fewer articles are published and those which are have not benefited from additional copy editing and writing.

And by the way, you most certainly do publish editorials, and speculation. I've pointed it out dozens of times to you in your personal articles. Blog journalism is essentially personality-driven reporting, where only the topics of interest to the blogger are covered, and then only from xyr point of view. There's plenty of that already, which is why Wikinews can be a breath of fresh air. (It's extremely unfortunate that corporate media are looking such models to copy, since bloggers are only useful to contrast with balanced news reporting.) - Amgine | ^t 03:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A penny for your thoughts

Okay, not really, but I am requesting your participation in the following Water Cooler Discussion: OR and Broadcast report. The discussion involves the need for specific policy concerning how Original Reporting relates to information recieved from a broadcast report of an event. This can include both news-style reports and non-news reports, such as a sporting event. Thanks and again, please share your thoughts on this so we can get as many people involved as possible, especially since this relates to an important topic such as OR. —Calebrw (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

09akoguc (talk · contribs)

Hi, I was wondering why you blocked this user without first warning about external link spamming? I agree that the links he inserted were inappropriate, but an immediate block without warning seems a bit harsh. I won't revert your block, but was just wondering about your reasoning behind it. Cheers, tempodivalse 20:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy for foreign language sources

can you recall a policy on Wikinews articles NOT containing only foreign language sources? If so please see my talk page at: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:DragonFire1024#New_question_on_staleness I seem to remember you referencing a link to such a policy. Thanks :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Election notice

Nominations are now being accepted for the Arbitration Committee.

The deadline for nominations is Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 23:59 UTC. Elections will commence on Monday, August 10, 2009 and close on Monday, August 17, 2009 at 23:59 UTC. The new Committee will be appointed on Tuesday, August 18, 2009.

Please see http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2009 elections

Please circulate this notice.

Thanks Computerjoe's talk 12:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Vector Hater, You get to keep your tools!

Congrats, You get to keep your sysop, crat, checkuser, editor, reviewer and kitchensink tools. You are officially not loathed by the community, with the exception of my on going war because of your hating on vector. I'd send the admin mobile by, but I think someone stole it or lost it. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 15:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

Just wanted to say thanks for participating in my RfA. I'll be sure to put the tools to good use. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiVoices

Think you could manage this? Wikinews:WikiVoices? I pick you as accredited, 'crat, and great radio voice ;-) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

election certificate

${\color {Blue}{\mathfrak {Wikinews}}}:{\color {Sepia}The\;Free\;News\;Source}$

Election Certificate

The election committee for the 2010 Arbitration Committee election certifies that this user was elected to be an Arbitrator until July 31, 2011.

Benny the mascot (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Thorough" checkuser

Would you please deal with the concerns I have raised concerning a certain user from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan?

Or, at least reassure me that proactive action is being taken to avoid xe, with at-will access to a /16, plus proxies and compromised webhosts, is not going to end up with a collection of reviewer accounts? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

RfCU

Per here, please respond. This, I believe, should be treated as a serious matter. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiv-Bot

Hi Skenmy. I work in another Wiki and I would like to know how your Bot for Archives works. —88.64.90.215 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom nomination?

Would you accept nomination for another year on ArbCom? The deadline for nominations is 2000UTC on the 17th. --Pi zero (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I would accept --Skenmy ^talk 22:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated you. --Pi zero (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see my heads up at ArbCom talk page

Please see Wikinews_talk:Arbitration_Committee#FYI:_Heads_up_regarding_Viriditas. Just wanted to keep you in the loop, -- Cirt (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom nomination?

Would you accept nomination for another year on ArbCom? The deadline for nominations is 2000UTC on the 17th. --Pi zero (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed via email. --Pi zero (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent article review

How did you verify the interview text?

(Btw, you really should have sent the article back to the reporter to give it a proper lede; it doesn't get to the point as a news article should, but instead doesn't even mention the focal event —the interview— until the second paragraph, after spending a whole somewhat-long paragraph on background information, much of which doesn't even belong in the later sentence(s) of a lede.) --Pi zero (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

<taps fingers impatiently>

Amgine | t 00:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

<chuckles> I was expecting content at any moment, which likely our good friend has obviated. Still, good to see you here! - Amgine | t 17:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for reviewing and other assistance

Hi. Next week is the start of the IPC Alpine Skiing World Championships and two Wikinewies will be attending to cover the para-alpine skiing ahead of the 2014 Winter Paralympics . This is part of an effort outlined at Wikinews:IPC Alpine Ski World Championships. Immediately following this event, there will be a Meetup in Barcelona where Wikinews, the Paralympics and efforts to similar sport coverage will be discussed. At the moment, there are only two active reviewers on a daily basis. Demonstrating an ability to get reviews for these types of events done quickly is important for Wikinews credibility and gaining access to these types of events. I would really appreciate it if you could sign up on the IPC World Championship page to review, promote articles published during this period, assist in translating these articles into another language or attend the meetup in Barcelona. Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews Writing contest 2013 is here. :) Please sign up to participate?

We've created the Wikinews:Writing contest 2013, which will start on April 1 and end on June 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 contest. It would be a really great time for you, as an inactive Wikinews accredited reporter, to renew your credentials by doing some original reporting or conducting interviews. People should be around to interview to prevent a backlog, and several reviewers have access to scoop to make it easier to review any original reporting you do. If you are interested in signing up, please do so on Wikinews:Writing contest 2013/entrants. There is at least one prize on offer for the winner along with the opportunity to earn some barn stars as a way of thanking you for your participation. :D --LauraHale (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

too late :-( ArbCom

Hi. Too late, I feel sheepish that with everything else going on (on Wikinews and irl), I didn't ask you to stand for ArbCom this year. Honestly I'd have asked your permission to nominate you. --Pi zero (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Editing from America Online?

Please read Wikinews:Advice to AOL users. |}2602:304:AF53:3E99:7931:1C25:FC49:98D7 (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom 2014

Looking ahead to next month, would you accept nomination for ArbCom this year? --Pi zero (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users

Dear Skenmy,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Being bothered by User:Pi zero

He is bothering me with rubbish each edit. He is never contributing. He deletes articles comments sites here, although the article is existing. Articles under development are clean up articles. I might not write about RB Leipzig. My started articles have interest and he says that other archived articles are which from amateur clubs, university clubs or something else. He wants to rename my name here and is not rename me. My articles are written after the style such as about other proven football match reports. He is psychic unable to name reasons. Please remove him from the board! He neither productive nor socially competent or educated, for a globally representative on public free sites. He gets 3 up to 8 Dollars for a block. That is one of the many reasons why they are wild to block others and counting them in infoboxes. "Hä hä". --Nikebrand (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

CheckUser removal

Hi Skenmy, as you have been inactive completely for 1 year, per m:CU I have removed your CheckUser rights. Thank you for your contributions to Wikimedia! --Rschen7754 14:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom election 2015

Hi. Would you be willing to accept nomination again this year (or, nominate yourself)? --Pi zero (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

privs

Busy elsewhere? We understand, but this is a notice of privilege expiry!

Note! Your privileges on English Wikinews have been reduced.

Under the Privilege expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the rights held by your user account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of privilege use. You can view your user rights log here.

Point 4 of the Privilege expiry policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of privileges. We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the privilege reduction is in no way intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing privileges is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.

Review bit. --Pi zero (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Privs

Hm. I was thinking inactivity might call for removal of admin privs. But on second thought, I'm not so sure. --Pi zero (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Bureaucrat access removed

Busy elsewhere? We understand, but this is a notice of privilege expiry!

Note! Your privileges on English Wikinews have been reduced.

Under the Privilege expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the rights held by your user account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of privilege use. You can view your user rights log here.

Point 4 of the Privilege expiry policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of privileges. We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the privilege reduction is in no way intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing privileges is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.

Only your bureaucrat access has been removed. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Admin privs expiry

Busy elsewhere? We understand, but this is a notice of privilege expiry!

Note! Your Wikinews permission(s) have been removed.

Under the permission expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the permissions held by your account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of use. You can view your user permissions log here.

Section 4 of the policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of permissions. We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the permission reduction is not intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing permissions is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.

--Pi zero (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)