Hello there Sheldon, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, was it a bit weird editing your own encyclopedia article? Cheers! --maveric149

No, it wasn't really weird. I've written "author bios" to go on my book jackets. I figure I know a few things about myself that other people wouldn't readily know, and I just did my best to write from a "neutral point of view." (Of course, other people are still free to edit as they see fit.) --Sheldon Rampton 03:27 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

I'm delighted with the last changes you made to Richard A. Clarke. It's been a pleasure working with you. Katahon 02:27, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello there Sheldon, though I'm not too terribly concerned about the MoveOn.org page, I did notice something in one of your changes that you discussed on the page. MoveOn.org, when it intially started as "Censure and Move On" was intended to be a bipartisan effort; however, as things change with time, so do political views. Anyway, I just wanted you to know that it was indeed bipartisan at one time. However, what was there before was truly not a NPOV.

• http://www.beyondgrass.org/peace/archives/000076.html

Sheldon - I saw your post to the mailing list and saw that you're the author of 'Toxic Sludge is Good for You'. Last summer, my mom bought that book to consider assigning to her enviromental science class, and I read it in the meantime. I thought it was great, *especially* the chapter on how the book got its name. Thanks for the good reading. →Raul654 04:15, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Image:Sheldon Rampton.jpg, do you know who took that photography? Could you try to get permission for GFDL use? Or do you have other images of yourself that could fit on the Sheldon Rampton page? David Remahl 19:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The photograph was a publicity photo taken for one of my books. I don't think there's any problem at all with using it. --Sheldon Rampton 06:53, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just noticed your edit to Banana Republicans; I understand your rationale entirely, but would only like to point out that the website itself [1] refers to it as a "conspiracy". I look forward to reading the book. -- Viajero 23:12, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While it's true that the word appears on the Banana Republicans website, it appears within quote marks as part of the phrase, "the right-wing conspiracy," which alludes to Hillary Clinton's famous comment about the "vast right-wing conspiracy." The reference on the BR website doesn't make this distinction entirely clear, but the book itself makes a point of clarifying that the Republican political machine is not a conspiracy. FYI, the wording of the text on the BR website was not written by John or me but by one of the publicists for our publisher -- which is not to say that I disown it but merely that the nuances here are slightly different than what I would have written myself. --Sheldon Rampton 06:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've copied your comment, and my reply, to Talk:MoveOn.org. See you there. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 12:47, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

I am sending the following message to multiple users I'd strongly appreciate it if fair-minded users responded to the latest string of baseless personal attacks on the mailing list ([2], [3], [4], [5]). Stan Shebs, Fred Bauder, and RickK started attacking me ferociously since it came up on the mailing list that one of the articles I'd written was featured, Russian constitutional crisis of 1993.

I know that I have made mistakes on Wikipedia; but those mistakes were not motivated by anything other than a passion to make Wikipedia into a serious, professional, quality encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for ungrammatical POV rubbish and fiction. This is making it harder and harder for me to be as efficacious as a user as I want to be. (The distorted impression of my work that these attacks engender are at the root of quite a large number of conflicts on Wikipedia.) That's why I feel that they should finally be thoroughly discredited. 172 06:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Sheldon! I'm not sure if you're the original author of the Stakhanov article, but I wanted you to check out the changes I've made in it. I added more info. Thanks and take care! KNewman 20:06, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sheldon - Great work on Lee Atwater. When I started it, I felt that it was lacking, but I didn't have anything to pad it out with. Also, I've been meaning to ask you -- I'd like to turn free speech zone into a featured article (I've already gotten permission from someone to use pics from the '04 DNC), and I think it would be a great cooperative project between the Disinfopedia and wikipedia contributors. →Raul654 00:29, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Hi, Sheldon. I wonder if you might be interested in a possible wiki about journalism. Some ideas are at User:Maurreen/Journalism. Maurreen 08:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 14:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Hi Sheldon. You might like to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley, perhaps. the science is settled has come up :-)

Hi Sheldon. The RfA instructions (at the top of the page), say that we should keep evidence within our own sections of the evidence page, and keep discussion on the talk page. I believe your most recent edit there is misplaced. — Cortonin | Talk 05:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You lost track of the page you were on. [6] (SEWilco 16:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Hi Sheldon. As I recall, you did a great job fixing up the Sandinista article last year. I don't know how much time for these kinds of things you have at the moment, but do you think you could cast your eye on that article again as well as Daniel Ortega? I get the impression both have been afflicted by pov creep of late. Cheers, Viajero | Talk 16:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Sheldon Rampton! Please accept this message as an invitation to categorize your user page in the category Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin and removing your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Wisconsin page. The page will be removed when all users have been removed. Even if you do not wish to be placed in a category, could you take a moment to remove your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Wisconsin page? Thanks!!

To add your name to the category, please use the tag [[Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin|Sheldon Rampton]] to ensure proper sorting.

For more information, please see Wikipedia:User categorisation and Category:Wikipedians by location. -- Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I went ahead and add the user categorization to your user page since you were the last active user on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Wisconsin. Feel free to remove the cat from your user page if you no longer wish to be associated with Wisconsin. Have a great evening!! >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 05:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother. I have posted a Request for Comment for the pages Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff. ENdless revert wars and edit conflicts. Input welcome. --Cberlet 22:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sheldon, I was wondering if you could provide a proper copyright tag for your portrait on Sheldon Rampton. Well a more specific tag then just fair use. --Arm 06:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're someone who's navigated the hazardous rapids of the Wikipedia autobiography guidelines effortlessly (perhaps with occasional grinding of teeth). I've just revised WP:AUTO per discussion on wikien-l, also adding a section on "If you already have an article about you" — with our increasing popularity, we've got more than a few dismayed article subjects! If you could please look it over and add or subtract whatever you feel relevant, please do so - David Gerard 11:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...was deleted. But you're encouraged to created a non-spam stub. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Korea_(179).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.. for your endorsement. If I get elected, I hope you and I will have a chance to sit down again, because I'd really like to discuss the issue of PR in Wikipedia, and possible counter-strategies to systematic campaigns, in some greater depth.--Eloquence* 10:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front#Multiple Inconsistencies in Article: beyond my knowledge or my ability to comment usefully. You seem to know the topic reasonably well, can you possibly weigh in? - Jmabel | Talk 19:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC) --[reply]

Wow...did you really know Sonia Johnson?

-anon, Nov 7/06

Hello, Sheldon - Nice to see that you've been adding your input & expertise to Wikipedia! I came across your name in the edit history for Propaganda films, and I thought you might like to weigh in on some discussions re: deletion of several subcats of Category:American propaganda films -- namely, Category:Left-wing American propaganda films, Category:Right-wing American propaganda films and Category:American Vietnam War propaganda films. (I nominated the last two subcats myself, somebody beat me to the first one.) My argument, in a nutshell, is that all three are poorly-defined, highly subjective POV magnets. All sorts of films are being dumped into these subcats and labelled as "propaganda" - which I think ought to be reserved for a more narrowly-defined cohort of films.

If you or John Stauber (or any of your colleagues) are interested in adding your thoughts, you can join the discussions at:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_27#Category:American Vietnam War propaganda films

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_31#Category:Right-wing_American_propaganda_films

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_31#Category:Left-wing_American_propaganda_films

Regards, and Happy New Year,

Craig Gingold

Cgingold 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just thought I should let you know that I have nominated The science is settled, to which you have contributed, for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The science is settled. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

I've read them all - fantastic. The immaculate footnotes set them apart from anything else in the field. Thank you, Sir! --AStanhope 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:MoveOnBillboard.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Calliopejen1 15:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it is generally considered inappropriate to make general edits to a protected article without gaining consensus on the talk page as you did here. Please consider reverting your edit and bringing the point to discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sheldon Rampton,

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

So a few things about the interviews:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar ([[User talk:Jaobar|talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.34.167 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Sheldon Rampton a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. You can ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you are an admin in Wisconsin (based on your userpage), so if you're interested, I wanted to invite you to a humanities edit-a-thon in the Madison Public Library on Friday, April 25th (1:30–3:30). It'll be on the shorter side and is aimed at new editors, but I hope to see you there. More information is available on the 2014 UW Conference on the Public Humanities website. Let me know if you have any questions czar ♔ 04:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Rampton, I'd like to invite you to an upcoming edit-a-thon:

ART+FEMINISM EDIT-A-THON

• Saturday, March 5th, 9:30 a.m. – noon
• Madison Public Library (Madison, Wisconsin)
• Bring a laptop! There will be snacks and daycare

RSVP on the event page if you plan to attend or have any suggestions. czar 00:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You received this message because you are a member of Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin. To opt-in to future Madison event messages, add yourself to the mailing list.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mathias Duplessy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dikes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sheldon Rampton. 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.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

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. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sheldon Rampton.

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

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

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

Hello, Sheldon Rampton. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sheldon Rampton. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

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

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Obituaries

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

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

{{Admin help}} I just protected the Siva Vaidhyanathan page on Wikipedia. I am friends on Facebook with Professor Vaidhyanathan, who wrote an editorial that was published today in the New York Times about the Nazi violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, where he teaches. He asked on Facebook that someone "lock" his page since he thinks there is a strong possibility his editorial will attract harassment including possible vandalism of his page. I protected the page for one day but would like guidance from someone who is a more active administrator than me. I have been a Wikipedia administrator since around 2004, but I have not actually been very active as an editor or administrator for several years now, so I'm not very conversant with current policies and procedures for things such as protecting pages. I'd appreciate any advice, and apologies in advance if I did it wrong. I thought this was a case where it was best to put some kind of protection in place quickly and then work out the details later. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/opinion/why-the-nazis-came-to-charlottesville.html

To be honest, we don't preemptively protect pages, even at request of users (though that really needs to go through OTRS). If there was disruptive editing on the page, the best thing to do would be to list it at WP:RFPP and have it reviewed there, especially for something such as pending changes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll list it there and see what people recommend. --Sheldon Rampton (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sheldon Rampton. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MarioGom (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sheldon Rampton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sheldon Rampton. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Andrew Hoppin".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

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

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 08:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Special interest and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 16#Special interest until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

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

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doing non-Wikipedia things in your life is allowed! If you decide to return to editing, there is still plenty to do! If you need any of the extra tools less than the admin toolkit, drop a note at WP:PERM or feel free to ask on my talk page. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Lester E. Bush, Jr.. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Paul Vaurie. I've added several references and have submitted the article for review. Please let me know if there is anything else I should do to improve it. Sheldon Rampton (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheldon Rampton: Looks pretty good to me, to be honest. An infobox wouldn't hurt. I rather let another editor take up the review, though. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Utopes was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The first two references are primary sources, and the second two are passing mentions. This is not enough to demonstrate notability, which requires coverage from reliable, secondary sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lester E. Bush, Jr. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sheldon Rampton! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Utopes (talk / cont) 02:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lester E. Bush, Jr., which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]