The CAR update ahas been ready and waiting before that of Ukraine? Why ignoring that? And thailand(Lihaas (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

Neither of those nominations are fit for posting. The CAR item doesn't even mention CAR, nor explain CNT. The Thai item basically says a person was shot. With all due respect to him, that's one death. What are the implications or importance? Stephen 23:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, this isn't a ridiculous claim - it's basically true; the fictional character name is passed along from one Captain to the next, to build reputation. See the article about the character, Dread Pirate Roberts. Hamid999 (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a ridiculous claim to assume a fictional characteristic applies to a real life person because they use the name as their anonymous internet nickname. Provide a reference where the name is handed from person to person on Silk Road. Stephen 22:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(coming here from the article)The claim is not rediculous, nor is it untrue. It's just unsourced. I remember a few months back news reports saying that this was in fact the case - that someone else had taken on the name. What is probably not true is that it was "handed down upon retirement" as in the fictional work. What I don't recall is if the person who claimed the title got it to "stick" in the eyes of the underground community or if his "claim" whithered into irrelevancy. Most importantly, I don't remember which news source I saw this in. No reliable source = not to be used in Wikipedia if challenged (especially on BLP-related subjects), and as it was challenged, it can't be used without a reliable source. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

whats the problem? satusuro 08:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fat fingers on a tablet. Good job I have rollback! Hope all is well, Stephen 09:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hahah my brothers in law have huge fingers - also my son has my ipad at the moment... I understand... all is well ... hahaha satusuro 09:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This matter was discussed repeatedly during the ANI. Neither of us is topic banned from any page. I'll abide by any future formal finding, but you can see that my edits, comments, and nominations have all been the subject of the other editor's comments and reversions. Unless he's admonished for that, and both of us are formally warned not to comment on each other's nominations (rather than addressing each orther personally, or mentioning each other's actions obliquely, which I haven't done, but he has) I have no intention of refraining from objective comments on nominations themselves. I'll provide diffs for the other editor's personal comments, reversions, and comments on my nominations since the ANI if you insist I do so under immunity. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are not topic banned. You have an interaction ban. This means you are not permitted to reply to TRM's comments or nominations. Stephen 00:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll need to show me that judgment in the ANI or where IBAN policy states such a thing, and frankly I am curious why this is coming up now as opposed to, say, in the Sid Caesar nomination? (Was my opposition personally addressed to the other party, or somehow disruptive? Or were you solicited in regard to this?) Both of us have commented and acted on many of the same nominations since the IBAN. I'd prefer any advice come from a third party, given my criticism of your adminning of the ITN candidate page. I am not looking for this--I only respond because you bring it up. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Search for WP:Interaction ban, and read the second bullet. This is coming up now because that is the one I noticed. I'm not going to go back through any prior posts. As a regular on ITN I am involved enough to not take any further action, notwithstanding that I don't believe I've seen any unwarranted criticism from you. I'll post at the administrator boards for a second opinion. Stephen 03:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the revert. You've probably realised by now it was a misslclick on a mobile device. Only realised it happened this morning when saw notification. Apologies again.Blethering Scot 09:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a suggestion. You may want to change your note to say twelve years late, rather than two. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Say no to frugs" Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You are the administrator that create protected Hackforums to sysop levels. I acknowledge this that this is due to the spam creation and the flimsy !keep votes on the afd, and the fact that after it was deleted, it was recreated. I'm not faulting you. Only, I'd like to request a reassessment in circumstances. Based on the notice of Blackshades malicious tool, Hackforums ultimately was involved and has produced reliable sources regarding the site. Would you mind getting a look at my draft of it and give me pointers on what to do/add/improve or whatever? I think that the circumstances have changed since then and that it is notable enough in reliable sources to have an article. Thanks. See my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tutelary/sandbox/Hackforums Tutelary (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that the hook has been corrected, are you or is anyone planning to reinstate it? It would be good if it could be reinstated. A P Monblat (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you get a minute, it would be good if you could look at this again. The hook as revised is fine, and there is no reason to continue to deprive this article of a "Did You Know". A P Monblat (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I pulled the hook in response to a Main page errors note that it was inaccurate and misleading. I have no issues with an amended hook going back on the Main page but I don't participate in that process. Stephen 01:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand, but do you happen to know what needs to be done to achieve a reinstatement? I'm very new to DYk, while the "regulars" seem to have lost interest in this nomination. It seems to be in limbo-land, and may stay there indefinitely unless some sort of action is taken, I fear. A P Monblat (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have a clue about DYK processes. Can it be nominated again, with a comment to its history? Stephen 05:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An anonymous user just edited my user page and inserted their email address (see this revision). I'm thinking this should probably be hidden, since most people don't actually want their email address publicly available like that. Thanks. demize (t · c) 00:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, thanks for thinking of his privacy. Stephen 01:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, a user with no history made an edit which was clearly disruptive and offensive. I reverted that edit. Further, another user claims the account used to create the revision is masquerading as his Twitter handle (discussion). Would you please delete this revision? Thank you! —Tony Webster (talk / contribs) 04:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, and the user blocked. Stephen 05:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you delete my comment re the giant scallop FP text from Talk:Main Page? It was a perfectly valid and reasonable comment. In publishing and graphics, typographical 'widows' and 'orphans' are to be avoided. IMO, this one looked amateurish, and constituted an editing error. Sca (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'd already had a response that the layout of the Main page is subject to a user's screen size and resolution, browser configuration, and a myriad of other figures. There were no strange characters between the two words. It wasn't an error, it wasn't going to be fixed, so I cleared the error report. Stephen 01:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unaware of the response you cite. Sca (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Anaheim (train station) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Fettlemap (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center opens December 6, 2014! Fettlemap (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know you must really like Czar, but you can only vote once ;)--v/r - TP 03:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two orange maintainance tags and you post it? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WTF, how did I miss those?! The article I looked at was pretty clean; I can only think I had another nondescript american bio open and didn't notice I was looking at the wrong guy. Thanks for the poke. Stephen

Hello! I found your name by looking through both Admins who are willing to provide copies of deleted articles, and Admins willing to use the RevDel tool. I have a request that is not quite either, but related, and I was hoping you might be willing to assist. I'm a non-Admin, but I'm interested in reviewing the content of a revdeletion. I understand non-Admins are normally not permitted to view this material, as it is intended not to be available publicly, but it appears a private review is possible if an Admin is willing to allow it or email it. Is that something you may be willing to look into? Thanks! Ries42 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm happy to consider it, but can't make a call until I've reviewed the content. Please point me at the deleted revision. I have email enabled if you wish to communicate that way. Stephen 21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how can we use the talk jimbo page when the talk page is protected ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.77.114 (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC) You can't it is semi protected - 60.224.249.55 (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, momentarily

I looked at ANI for a currently active admin and I found you.

Can you delete some personal contact information put up by a 14-year-old? The information can be seen in the page history of the following:

• User talk:Trisha puso
• User:Trisha puso
• User:TRIZZIA PUSOl

Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, Stephen 03:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should renominate. The CN tagged item is uncontrovesial, but I have hidden it, and the OR assertion is not tagged at all. So I have removed the page tag.

Plus, Isabella Rosellini!!!

μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've still got three of five body sections without a reference, which is against our Biography of Living Organisms policies. And the references that are there are all around the recent discovery. Stephen 23:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was the point of this edit? I believe this is not the first time you are undoing my edits there. Last time I checked you did not own that page, so please refrain from making unconstructive reverts of my edits. Nergaal (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May i use this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piano_staff_blank.PNG And post them under a different licences, Cause im Currently composing a music and I don't want someone to remix or use it for commercial use without permission. --MrMonsterman34 (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can use it for whatever you want, within the limits of WP's licencing. Stephen 00:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everybody, including the nom, wanted the altblurb on that one. Abductive (reasoning) 04:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're probably not online... Abductive (reasoning) 05:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Switched, although I was sure I copied that one. Thanks for the heads up. Stephen 05:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue where you may be involved. CitingSportsRefer (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I get that there are some editors who prefer not to revert "helpful" edits from blocked (or in this case globally locked) editors...but why would you revert me to restore a false ANI notice to your talk page? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 04:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was a discussion on ANI about me. Stephen 05:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why??? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies, unintended misclick. Stephen 10:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I assumed - no problem. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if the page about musician going as Autamata could be restored? It's been pulled down on account that the importance of the subject was "not asserted" or, perhaps "not asserted enough". Why wasn't it just tagged as "stub", if that was the case? Many articles just need more time to mature, that's all, and here we're talking about somebody that has issued at least one complete album. If winning some "idol" competition is enough to warrant an entry and avoid deletion in Wikipedia - surely completing an album, collaborating with other musicians "from Wikipedia" and being referred to in other articles can do the job as well? Thanks. Zm1974 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article was, 8 years ago, 2 lines sourced to their website and a Myspace profile. Have a look at WP:BAND, and create a better article. Stephen 05:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sectioned discussion is enforced at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. With the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section. Thank you. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, seems onerous but thanks for the refactor. Stephen 01:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it.

By the way, nice name - although I spell mine with a "V" instead. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Stephen. You have new messages at David Levy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

—David Levy 10:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: "you've posted this at Errors, not appropriate here" —

Stephen, I view "Southeast U.S." as a style (in the sense of accepted usage) error. Kindly explain why you believe the following wasn't appropriate at Main Page Errors.

..... and Southeast U.S. coastal areas....

– Bleve correct sytnax would be "southeastern U.S. coast areas."

"Southeast (capped) U.S." is not a usual U.S. designation. Sca (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Sca (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was appropriate at Errors. I deleted your duplicate and misplaced post on Talk:Main Page. Stephen 23:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Undone by User:Stephen. Mamyles (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who are you to be undoing admin corrections to ITN? Sca (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you provide a link to the "house style" you mentioned in this revert of User:Jayron32's edit? I find it hard to believe we have a "style" which compels us to use redundancy such as "At least 14 people are killed and 21 others injured...". Moriori (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, but what you can do is look at the page history for previous items posted. Stephen 22:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Stephen, Could you join the discussion at WP:ITN/C talk page regarding your closure of the above nom after only 10 hours and with only one comment? This doesn't seem sufficient time to gather opinions from editors, neither does one comment constitute consensus. What was your reasoning here? Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the response! MurielMary (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas, Stephen, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Philip Schneider is protected from creation. As you deleted the page, I come here :). Can you please move Draft:Philip Schneider to Philip Schneider. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Sander.v.Ginkel, sorry for the delay - I've now moved this for you. The previous article was for a different Philip Schneider that was deleted a few years ago. Let me know if you need anything else. Stephen 04:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently asked for some admin to close one ITN item (some Syrian battle on Feb 3, 2016 (here until it gets archived)) as the nominator had indicated it could be closed if it didn't get support. I also asked for another item (about a trade deal on the same day (here until it gets archived)) to be closed as having too many opposes to gain consensus, without specifically mentioning admins. The second item currently remains unclosed. The first item got closed by TRM (TheRamblingMan, who as far as I know is an admin), who commented that I could have closed it myself. I was not aware that I could do so as a non-admin - the only mention of closure that I can find is on the Instructions To Admins page. Also there was at least a slight element of judgment involved in both cases (had the nominator's condition of lack of support been given enough time, and how many opposes makes consensus impossible) which might require an admin to judge. So I'd appreciate some clarification on whether and when I can close - logically I should ask TRM, but I'd prefer to ask you, as past experience means I often feel uncomfortable communicating with TRM. But as it's not all that important, please feel free to ignore this request if it's too much hassle. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, for example we see Medeis closing these sorts of discussion relatively frequently. There's no harm in doing it if it's clear enough, even exercising a little judgement. If it's a problem, it can be re-opened. Nothing is irreversible. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur exactly with TRM; anyone can close an ITNC discussion if the consensus is clear that the item is not going to be posted, or if discussion is continuing with no added value after a posting. Don't close anything that needs an admin follow-up such as a consensus to post. There is more detail at WP:Non-admin closure. It may get reopened if someone feels it was too early or their voice wasn't heard, but it's not a big deal, and probably best if you don't close that one again. And, as you see above, TRM is a great editor who gives good advice, and he is one of the main reasons that ITN showcases quality content rather than the minor American event of the week. Either of us are more than happy to answer your questions. 23:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you. Might it be a good idea to spell out something like the above somewhere helpful, such as on the ITNC page, and/or its Instructions to Admins page, and/or by mentioning 'WP:Non-admin closure' there and mentioning ITNC closures at 'WP:Non-admin closures' (which currently only mentions other kinds of closures)?Tlhslobus (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can make those changes yourself, or seek consensus on the relevant talk pages. Stephen 22:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I guess I'll probably have a think fairly soon about whether or not I want to try, but not just yet. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And once again, thanks to both of you for your help.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The oldest blurb, the earthquake in Taiwan, should be reinserted. The next DYK queue will outbalance the right side of the Main Page. --George Ho (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no need for you to micromanage the main page layout. There are enough people watching who know to tweak it. Stephen 07:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am I micromanaging? If not, then you take that back and then apologize to me. George Ho (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you are. Stephen 09:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Think what you will. I was expressing my concerns, but I don't appreciate this perception. You know what? I'm done here. George Ho (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Stephen. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Just a quick note, I've re-opened the nom per two requests to do so. Hopefully you're okay with that, I don't really see it as a big deal.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note, but it was User:Spencer not me who closed it. Stephen 21:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops. Began with an S, had an "n" and another "e". Pardon moi. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I captioned the TFA blurb's image because the article's subject is the hearing, not Oppenheimer himself.
I omitted the first name and first initial/middle name from the captions (but not from the titles) to prevent them from wrapping to a second line (a repeated source of complaints, though not something that bothers me personally). We've done this on previous occasions (for the same reason), so you're mistaken in stating that we've "always" used the full name in that context. ("Usually" would be accurate.) —David Levy 05:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for one of the best closure summaries I've seen in a long time. Comprehensive, succinct, humourous and accurate. I didn't think anything about that discussion could make me chuckle, but I was wrong. GoldenRing (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

. 👊කසුන්👊 (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, I started a discussion here. Figured I should let you know since you closed the nomination. Zagalejo^^^ 02:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That isn't the version of the image that was passed over, as explained in the note that I just left in the discussion. —David Levy 03:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It still looks terrible from where I'm sitting. Not suitable for the main page at all. Stephen 03:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I respect your opinion (and obviously have no intention of undoing your reversion).

However, rather than expressing dissatisfaction with my attempt to improve the image, you implied in your edit summary that I made none (and disregarded others' input by inserting the "explicitly not posted" version). —David Levy 04:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw no fundamental improvement in the thumbnail, and it still clicks through to a very poor quality image. It's no big deal if we don't have a picture for a few days, we've often done it before. Stephen 04:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, I'm not challenging your opinion that the image's quality remained unacceptably low. Additionally, I agree that "it's no big deal if we don't have a picture for a few days". My concern relates to the conduct (on my part) implied through your edit summary. —David Levy 04:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was lipstick on a pig that had been previously discounted, but I did not mean to imply any misconduct per se on your part. Stephen 05:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. This may sound a bit of a strange request, but I hope you will be able to help. I took part in this RD discussion, which has since been archived by the bot. I did notice that you closed several discussions on that page, but that one that I took part in was archived without a decision. I did get a bit worked up there, and worried that the discussion would be archived without a decision (as eventually happened). It would help me to know whether the discussion would have been closed one way or the other, even if it would have been too old to really go on the RD section (the bot removing it is very impersonal - having a human close the decision would be far preferable). Would you have any thoughts on that, and should I have asked for an admin to look at the discussion and close it? I don't want what happened to me there to happen to others (I fear it probably does), so one thing I may do is help out more as an admin at WP:ITN/C. Would you have any advice on that? Carcharoth (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Carcharoth, that was great work on bringing the article up to scratch but unfortunately it looks like it was just a little too late. The quality was there but I suspect it was too stale to post - although I haven't checked the actual timeline of events, as to whether there was space on RD to post or whether it was already full of newer deaths. The posting date is almost always the date of death or, in rare cases, the date the death was first reported; it's never the funeral date or later memorial. It's actually rather rare to have an article improved so significantly so many days after the death, and, depending on the RD turnover, sometimes worthy individuals don't get their chance. Closing discussions is optional and sometimes they do get 'impersonally' archived. I try to make a point of closing as it makes scanning the contents easier to see which discussions have matured to a decision point. Please help out at ITN, we need more able hands. Comment on the items, tweak a blurb or add an alternative. Assess the quality of an RD nomination, and have a crack at posting. If you need help with assessing a full item or posting or switching a picture, then please let me know. Stephen

Thanks. Great advice. I'll try and follow up this weekend. Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Stephan! One doubt... Don't we post Template:ITN talk on talk pages of article if the article has appeared in RD? I noticed that you gave me credit on my talk page but haven't posted anything on Talk:Gurdial Singh. Did you just miss it? If not, then I had previously posted it on one such similar RD which should be reverted. I was under impression that t was missed out by whoever delivered credits then. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my few years of posting ITN blurbs, I've never posted anything on the article talk. Per WP:In the news#Recognition, it looks as though it's an optional step that anyone can do. Stephen 04:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All those templates and wikipedia pages were all right? Marvellous Spider-Man 08:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Stephen. 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)

I hope you can check out my proposal here: Proposal to amend the RD nomination criteria. I strongly disagree with your immediate closing of my nomination. In fact I was infuriated. Your closure (here) of Bill Mollison as an ITN/RD candidate, occurred only 5 hours after I submitted my nomination. To put it kindly, I think this immediate closing was wrong-headed. The reason given for closing the Mollison nomination by you was that it was "Stale, older than oldest posted RD"; and even though 2 other editors gave their support to this nomination. In contrast, the Arnold Palmer nomination was not posted until 4 days after his death. Palmer's death was announced and verified to have occurred on September 25, 2016 (the following day he was nominated as an ITN/RD candidate). What's the reason for the late--4 days afterwards--posting? The stated reason is that the Arnold Palmer article, but only after 4 days of revision, had met the criteria of sufficient quality. I posted my nomination for Bill Mollison on September 29th, when it was given 2 support votes. My point is this: September 29th is the same day that Arnold Palmer was posted on the ITN section of the main page. Therefore, if I was permitted to post the Bill Mollison nomination on September 25th (see my proposal on the talk page) then the criteria of "Stale, older than oldest posted RD" would in some sense no longer apply, because it did not apply to the Arnold Palmer nomination; or it would also apply to the Arnold Palmer nomination, and therefore we would have a bit of a dilemma. As I side note, even though the "notability" criteria no longer applies to RD (thankfully) here's an interesting "Last Word" broadcast from BBC that pays tribute to recent deaths in the news. I'm not trying to lecture you, but Bill Mollison made a real and lasting impact on our world, and I am really angry that his RD was not posted. Anyhow, here's something to listen to if you want to, or can find the time: BBC Radio 4 - Last Word: Shimon Peres, Nathalie Evans, Arnold Palmer, Bill Mollison, Jean Shepard. -- Christian Roess (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum - I was informed (in a comment on the talk page for my proposal) that I was in error posting my nomination on the 24th of September, and that it was reasonable for me to list it on September 25. Perhaps if I'd have done that at the beginning, I wouldn't have had these issues. Apologies if I got a bit unhinged in this process and took it out here. Christian Roess (talk)

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

efficient service

Thank you for service for more ten years, for quality articles such as Steve Arneil, Sea Life Sydney Aquarium and Sydney Philharmonia Choirs, for project tags and welcoming new users, for a statement of good observations modestly sold as 2 cents, for fighting vandalism and taking the time for favours, for images, - Stephen, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is exceptionally kind Gerda, thank you. Stephen 04:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: per this and this, we can probably unblock Jimbo now. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 01:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would personally wait until he posts on his talk page that he is back in control of his account, and has reset his password to a value that only he knows, and that is not in an email from the WMF. Stephen 02:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a different note, it allowed me to "unreview" the main page. !Pyrusca (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations! Jimbo's been blocked six times now, but you're the first to do it properly and in good faith :-) Especially impressive is the fact that your good actions combined the actions of two separate people who got sentenced to the stocks (sections 1.2 and 1.4) for what they did! Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Stephen.

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[reply]

Hello, Stephen. 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[reply]

This is the first thing any scientific reader wants to know. Thanks Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really? Then why weren't the atomic numbers listed when we posted the story in June? I don't particularly care either way, but good to know you represent the wishes of all our scientific readers. Carry on. Stephen

Yes. It was an error. Good, you're welcome. I will. Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for tidying. But no, not a joke about rape, but rather one about how an encyclopedia chooses to remember its "heroes". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]