User talk:TUFKAAP

edit to terrorist article
Hi, you changed part of the NYC subway bombings article to something else which isn't sourced. The source (IIRC) doesn't say that both leaders were killed, only one. It does say that they are both dead, however. Please fix. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about the removing the interwiki and link. I didn't realize I had removed them. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Massive snowstorm blasts most of United States
I changed the quote to something verifiable. --Pi zero (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

French aircraft on flights over Libya; US missiles launched at targets
should not have been self-sighted. Do not self-sight substantial edits to published articles. It is a form of self-publication, and is not allowed. (I realize, you may have missed when this policy was officially adopted; it came into effect when we had autosight turned off.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Human Achievement Hour
Hi, I thought of mentioning the Human Achievement Hour but my thinking was that it might made the article resemble the climate change/global warming debate like Wikipedia has, which I didn't think had a place in an article announcing the occurrence of Earth Hour, especially as arguments pro and con weren't featured in the sources (except the National Geographic mention). Also, how is leaving your lights on during Earth Hour distinguished you from someone who just doesn't know about Earth Hour? (I hadn't really heard about it before.) Anyway, thanks for passing the article! Regards, Mattisse (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of reviewal privileges
Do you have any diffs you could link to, in your recent removal of reviewer privileges from ? IRC is not connected with Wikinews and should not be the reason for something as serious as a de-reviewer. A request is standard practice, surely? At the very least, it should be specified what exactly was done wrong for the benefit of others. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bad behavior is the main reason Tempo. -- Nascar 1996  (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is nothing on-wiki that merits de-reviewer. Basically, three or four editors on IRC agreed to remove the rights of a user without even consulting the community at large for consensus. Most editors do not use IRC consistently. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tempo thanks for trying, but all is over for me. -- Nascar 1996  (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to restore them right now. I was a quick cool-down for Nascar. I want him to let some steam off... and relax. Have a nice cup of tea. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving. I can't not stand joking, etc. Thats why what happened happened. There is not really any point of doing that. If I do return, I will return with a new face, new attitude, and a new username. I will also not create only NASCAR articles like I have been. I enjoyed my time here. --Nascar1996 (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I please get unbanned from IRC. I would like to say one last thing. It was assume good faith. All that is over. My eyes became watery after all this happened. --Nascar1996 (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You've retired. No point. --Diego Grez return fire 00:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Tina/BRS... No. Sorry. :( --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Its alright --Nascar1996 (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are to stay banned for a period of 24 hours, per multiple ops/users. However, your Reviewer rights have been restored. I want you to still contribute. However, you have acted very badly. Homophobia and racism is something that we don't lightly here. Even if it's on IRC. Relax, take a chill pill, sip some tea. And come back tomorrow. Start over anew and a clear the air. :) Okay? --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please remove my review rights. I'm not going to return. If I do I will not be trusted. Per my first RFA, MC8 said I wasn't ready because I almost retired. Its over. I destroyed my name. I am going to have to live with that. --Nascar1996 (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Diego Grez return fire 01:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for restoring the rights in question (even if they were resigned anyway). I'm a stickler to the rules and don't like to see them broken in this manner, that can make me quite irked sometimes. :) Tempodivalse [talk]  01:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am very depressed about this. Nascar1996 is a kind, thoughtful, competent editor in my opinion and never should have been treated this way. Nascar, please come back. You make Wikinews a better place for me. Please reconsider.  Mattisse (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Editors like Nascar should be nurtured for the good of Wikinews. He has always shown an openness and a willingness to learn and improve. He makes Wikinews a more welcoming place for people like me.  Mattisse (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, IRC has no bearing on the wiki, especially for an indefinite block. This user needs to confirm on-wiki he wished to be blocked, and even then I don't think there is basis for a block according to the blocking policy. This process lacks transparency. Tempodivalse [talk]  21:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is if what happens off-wiki impacts what happens on-wiki. I don't feel we should beat up any particular editor over such; we have no policy for determining when the line is crossed. This is why I hate crosswiki and offwiki disputes, they're so messy and difficult. Having given it almost a full day, I'm inclined to think Nascar could contribute just fine on-wiki. However, I can fully understand opinions to the contrary. We should have an abstract discussion on the water cooler about when off-WN issues impact upon WN and how to handle them, rather than yell at TUFKAAP. We've never properly considered cross-and-off wiki; there's never seemed any need. We'd best sort that out. Disclaimer: I supported de-reviewer at the time, but I've come to think they didn't need pulled instantly. If required, a request for de-reviewer would have been sufficient. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope my comment on TUFKAAP's permission page is not interpreted as "yelling" at him. The comment was a criticism of the general practice off wiki decisions being made that are not transparent to the community, and not aimed at TUFKAAP specifically. What happened was a very ugly incident. I hope wikinews considers this sort of thing important enough to solidly address the issue and improve the standards here. If wikinews seeks to attract and retain users, then a pleasant, fair working atmosphere with clearly understood procedures would go a long way accomplish this goal. And casual incivility from the long time editors should not be tolerated because they have been here longer and have power. It gives the impression that certain editors "run" wikinews, while the rest of us are "out group" and held to higher standards. I was threatened with a block  when I first began because of remarks I made when I was upset  to Pi zero when my first article was given a review I could not understand the meaning of. I really said nothing that was clearly uncivil, certainly not as uncivil as remarks I have seen that editor (and others) make routinely.   That is not a way to treat a new user on their first article who has not gotten used to the manners and ways of Wikinews. (And please don't block me for these comments.) Regards, Mattisse (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it very concerning that you think you might actually get blocked for making the above comment (Rest assured you would not). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was threatened with a block a few days after my first edits in February because  "your comments about [an editor] being unaware of the wider aspects of article writing are unpleasant to say the least" because the editor I posted to "has been with Wikinews for a considerable time". So, in other words, I risk being blocked if I have an editing disagreement with an editor who has been here a long time, or express my own views. Since then I have had published 34 articles with no problems.  But the effect of that block threat is that  I have felt intimidated about making any comments except Thanks! and such. I hope you won't block me if I say that the blocking policy here seems a little irrational and inconsistent. And there seems to be few proactive attempts to educate; rather the approach seems punitive in tone.  Mattisse (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

&lt;Undent&gt;
 * Matisse: there's nothing I can say to change your mind or perception. I can say that BarkingFish was clearly out of line, and you could not be blocked within policy. Policies are never implemented perfectly the same in every situation; we're all humans. I hope you won't hold us to a higher standard than is realistic. -  Amgine | t 00:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mattisse: No, you're right. Our blocking policy is a little bit *too* inconsistent. That is partly by design (individuality and chaos rule, rather than bureaucracy and red tape, like on en.wikipedia), and partly because we haven't been active enough in reigning in some of our overzealous users. We don't want to have too many rules, so our current blocking policy is basically "do what you think is right, within these guidelines). Maybe the guidelines are ever so slightly too loose, or maybe they're fine and we're just not following them. But either way being friendly to newbies without creating stupidly large amounts of red tape to prevent abuse should be our goal. And it is. We just haven't found the right balance yet. But whatever we do we don't want to become like Wikipedia, where you *must* warn a user X number of times, no matter how blatant their vandalism, and you *must* be friendly to them, even when they're mean to you. That's silly. Gopher65talk 00:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BarkingFish is often clearly out of line, and when he isn't he is unnecessarily rude. It sets a tone here. I won't defend Wikipedia at length, but at least there is an attempt at friendliness there. And the blocking policy is clearer and somewhat more transparent, although a lot goes on behind the scenes under the guise of the "Arbcom" and their secret discussions and decisions. But editors do take much more care in wording at Wikipedia now, noticeably so in the last few months, including edit summaries (which can also be immensely insulting.) And admins are held up to increasingly high standards and are expected to be positive examples. Increaingly there are conversations of the need to have stricter desyop procedures, and more admins have been desyop recently. Has wikinews given up on the matter, since so few editors are in control and it is scary to confront them? I fully expect I will be blocked fairly soon as I am being way too outspoken.   Mattisse (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mattisse - If you consider me to be "often clearly out of line", you are welcome to nominate me for removal of my privileges here. I don't consider myself to be "unnecessarily rude" either, and would welcome proof of that here. However, in the case of the issue you raised above, I would say this: You weren't acting out of malice - I bit you because I felt that your comments about Pi Zero "not understanding the wider aspects of article writing" were out of order.  I didn't say you would be blocked, merely that it could happen.   What others would see, I will say in my defence, if you'd linked the rest of the conversaton, was that as soon as you retracted the comment concerned, I was immediately polite you to, and thanked you for doing it.  I also offered to help you, and suggested other users would do the same.  BarkingFish (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BarkingFish, don't you think that being polite after biting a newbie is a little backwards. Is intimidation the way to communicate community standards? Is intimidation a community standard a wikinews? Clearly there is a power structure here and I would for sure be punished by the power structure and my life made harder if I nominated you for removal of privileges. See Removal of reviewal privileges: go right ahead, make my day) I frequently see your rude, biting remarks, but I would not dare to challenge them out of fear.  You say above I would say this: You weren't acting out of malice - I bit you because I felt that your comments about Pi Zero "not understanding the wider aspects of article writing" were out of order.  I didn't say you would be blocked, merely that it could happen. In fact, you added: Please be warned that if you make comments in this manner again towards any editor, you may be blocked from editing or contributing. Consider this a warning shot, the next will not be a warning. Remember, this was your first ever post to me.  That I believe is clearly biting a newbie whom you admit was doing nothing out of malice. And you certainly did not explain what "the wider aspects of article writing" meant. Aren't the "wider aspects of article writing" a topic that should be frequently explored, analyzed and criticized here, a news writing site? Remember this was my first experience with a "reviewer" here.  I was having a discussion with Pi zero because he made general comments, like he was "uncomfortable" with what I wrote rather than making  clear criticisms of my article in his review and I did not understand what he meant. He said information was unsourced, while admitting repeatedly that he had not consulted the sources. He say I was employing "poetic POV" without consulting the sources. The comment you posted on my page You are advised that you should keep your interactions with other Wikinews editors and staff civil at all times, and avoid any wide ranging statements. Pi Zero has been with Wikinews for a considerable time, and your comments about him being unaware of the wider aspects of article writing are unpleasant to say the least. Please be warned that if you make comments in this manner again towards any editor, you may be blocked from editing or contributing. Consider this a warning shot, the next will not be a warning. [[User:BarkingFish|BarkingFish] (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)] This was your first post to me, a newbie who had been struggling to make sense of the way wikinews works. You admit there was no malice. You said you would block me without warning if I again made  "any wide ranging statements" because my comments "about him being unaware of the wider aspects of article writing are unpleasant to say the least." Is "unpleasant" the same as "uncivil"? Is "unpleasant" to you the same as "unpleasant" to him? Is it possible to have meaningful dialogs without occasionally something being considered "unpleasant"? Is that blockable?  A long time editor cannot be questioned or asked to explain?  I was trying to have an editorial discussion with Pi zero about what his statements meant. I wanted to understand. Now I fear being blocked if I make any "wide ranging statements", whatever that is.  However, if I make specific statements, that I am fairly sure you will think it is blockable also. I said I can remove some information and thereby remove some of the sources. I could remove the bit about the mercenaries (takes care of one source) and/or remove the part about the oil prices (that would remove another). Would that be ok? He said that was not what he meant and this was a misunderstanding. Presumably this is the conversation that you found blockable here. If editors are not allowed to discuss issues, try to clear up misconceptions, and air differences without threatened with a block, then how can this be called a news site? In any case, the result of your threats to me is that I asked Pi zero and  he  has agreed not to review any of my articles again. I have had absolutely  no problems with reviewers of my 34 articles, all published,  since then. None. It is unfortunate that I was prevented from working out my problems with Pi zero by you  and not  allowed to come to an understanding about what he expects me to do with his general statements. I learned to back away from Pi zero.  Because of your interference and threats to me, I  avoid him. (Feeling constrained about interacting with Pi zero is a real loss to me, as I greatly respect him.) There was no constructive outcome from your treatment of me. Except that I intend to avoid engaging  in anything you or Pi zero  are involved in,  and my opinion of wikinews has dropped dramatically.  The way the site is run drives contributors away.  No wonder hardly anyone participates in wikinews. I started out enthusiastically with high hopes of helping out, as I am a writer by profession,  and I wanted to produce  good contributions to make the site better. Now I see the problems here are too great and I fear the site will not last much longer.   Regards Mattisse (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it's backwards. Quite the opposite. I toned down my language towards you. I bit, i realised I shouldn't, and toned down my comments in my reply.  My "interference" as you put it, was because of this - a comment which I felt a "newcomer" had no right to be making to someone who knew a hell of a lot more about the site than them at that point in time: "I would like at some point to attempt another article, but I would like to request, if this is possible, that you do not review my work. I think you do not appreciate the more complex aspects of article writing and seem to rely on your own preconceptions of what is true, your own prejudices, your own "worries." Perhaps you are much younger than I am. I have been rigorously trained to relay on sources and not my personal opinion. You and I have very different journalistic ethics. Hopefully, if I recover from this nasty experience and write another article for Wikinews, you will not review it." You wouldn't be punished by anyone if you requested the removal of my rights, you're welcome to handle it as you wish. BarkingFish (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No Mattisse, your comment on my RfP, did not upset me. I am very hard to upset... at least on Wikinews. Relax. :) In fact, I'd be more than willing to smack any users with my banhammer with a slight knock-down for being rude to you, because granted... there are people who can be rude, biting and punks. You're a good contributor and we, especially I, don't want to lose you. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Review of ACLU, EFF challenging US 'secret' court orders seeking twitter data
Dendodge seems to be doing some checking on this but, it is quite substantial and could probably do with more than one set of eyes. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Indian activist begins "fast-unto-death" hunger strike to end corruption
Thank you! I was beginning to fiddle it to death with constant updates. Mattisse (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Help!
As the reviewer who passed Indian activist begins "fast-unto-death" hunger strike to end corruption, I was wondering if you would review the "pending changes" on it. The article has been rewritten after publication, a updated section added and sources added that are dated after the date of publication.

Only one change seems reasonable. It fixed a misspelling mistake.

The last pending change Dendodge (Talk | contribs) (Move Wikipedia box for page layout reasons) is based on the fact the the page that shows up has implemented the "pending changes", so to Dendodge the layout looks skewed due to the added section and other changes.

I would really appreciate your help on this, as all the pending changes have changed the article so much, I am afraid people will keep changing it to "fix" the page due to the "pending changes" having changed the article so much.

Hope I am making sense. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My edit had nothing to do with that. The Wikipedia template was after publish, which created loads of whitespace. I simply moved it somewhere where it could float to the right of some text. The pending changes had nothing whatsoever to do with that. DEN  DODGE  20:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources after the date of publication aren't allowed. I rejected those changes.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for birth certificate!
File:BarackObamaLongFormBirthCertificate-Cropped.jpg - much better than another head of Obama! Mattisse (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token b472f38a56e7799a04c7a368ca33b1c1
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Review request
Could you please review Space Shuttle program in penultimate landing as Endeavour enters history books after 19 years as soon as possible? -- Rayboy8 ( my talk ) ( my contributions ) 23:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Indentification
Have you identified to the Foundation yet? It a requirement for Oversight. See Identification noticeboard. The stewards need you to identify before you get Oversight (and 25 votes). — Mike moral  ♪♫  00:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I request renaming my following accounts: Thanks in advance.--M.Gedawy 07:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * محمد الجداوي → Avocato
 * GedawyBot → AvocatoBot
 * Confirmation link:
 * Reason: Privacy reasons

Wikinews:Paralympic Games
Can you provide feedback on Paralympic Games to improve this? I'd like to try to engage some of the sport community on Wikipedia and request help, along with asking a few Wikinews contributors to commit to reviewing during the Paralympics so things can be done as timely manner as possible. If we aren't able to get a commitment, we might have some problems. :(  Anyway, feedback and help asking Wikinewsies for help would be much appreciated.--LauraHale (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for reviewing and other assistance
Hi. Next week is the start of the 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 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 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 a Wikinews accredited reporter, to do some original reporting and conduct 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 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) 10:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon
I'm trying to clean it up. I'm going to abandon the article I started. --Bddpaux (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll be watching it. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

wikinewsie.org email
I see you've been inactive since April. And, your @undefinedwikinewsie.org mailbox is getting pretty full.

Are you still able to access it? Are you likely to need it (for example, at short notice) to carry out OR work?

scoop@undefinedwikinewsie.org will be getting 'marked as deprecated'; and, to tidy up some of the mess, the replacement distribution list will be opt in. I'll also be looking at other ways of handling incoming pressers so we can file them away and readily access them. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

New Blocked Message
can you edit the blocked text to this?:

You are not blocked from reading pages, only from editing them. If you were only intending to read a page and are seeing this message, you probably followed a red link. These are links to pages that do not exist, so they take users to an editing screen. You should have no problem if you follow only blue links.

If you would like to know when the block will expire, please search for your name or IP on the block list.

If the reason given is "username", "user...", or "contact an administrator for verification purposes", then you or someone with whom you share an IP address has most likely been blocked for choosing an inappropriate or suspicious username. Please read our username policy for more information. If you do not feel that the name is inappropriate, or if the name was registered by somebody other than yourself, please contact the blocking administrator, as described below.

{| style="background: none;"
 * width="49%" valign="top" |

Innocent?
Sometimes IP ranges or shared proxies are blocked from editing Wikinews. This means that innocent people sometimes can't edit. If this is the case, it should be explained in the reason given above.

Also, some individual dynamic IP addresses may be blocked, usually for 24 hours to 1 year. Occasionally, users with dynamic IPs will be blocked accidentally, due to that fact that their present IP was previously used by a blocked user.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. If this problem affects you repeatedly, and you would like to help us resolve this issue, you will need to contact a Wikipedia administrator and your internet service provider (ISP). The administrator should be able to obtain the time, date, and IP address used for the inappropriate behaviour in question, and describe what the problem was. You can then pass this information on to your ISP, explaining that you are unable to edit Wikipedia due to the inappropriate actions of another person using this ISP, and ask them to remedy the problem.
 * width="2%"|
 * width="49%" valign="top"|

What to do next
You can either wait for the block to expire, or contact $1 to resolve the problem that led to the block.

If you wish to contact $1, you may do so via email, or by adding "{&#123;unblock|your reason here&#125;}" to your user talk page (which you can edit even while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking.

Please note: While this block may be upsetting or unexpected, abuse of appeal processes, repeatedly using the unblock template when denied, personal attacks, or impolite conduct may lead to the removal of your ability to edit your talk page.

If after discussing the matter with $1 you believe the block is unfair, you may appeal the block. You will need to know: $2
 * Your IP address, which is $3
 * The name of the blocking admin, which is $1
 * The reason you were blocked, which is:

Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a Wikipedia account and a valid email address registered in your user preferences.
 * width="49%" valign="top" |
 * width="49%" valign="top" |

Editing from China?
Please read Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall.
 * width="2%"|
 * width="49%" valign="top"|

Editing from America Online?
Please read Advice to AOL users.
 * }2602:304:AF53:3E99:7931:1C25:FC49:98D7 (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Lovely spam
Looks like I was deleting it for "blatant copyvio" at the same time you were not-ready'ing it. No shortage of things to criticize there. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users
Dear TUFKAAP,

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 info boxes. "Hä hä". --Nikebrand (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikinewsie email
I'm getting bounce messages due to your wikinewsie mailbox being full. If you need a password reset, please let me know and confirm you've a working email address associated with your account here (so I can send the new password via 'email this user'). --08:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

??
Haven't seen you around in a LONG TIME......YOU still OK?? --Bddpaux (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Privs
'''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.


 * 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) 02:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

New RfA - acagastya - LINK
Hi TUFKAAP

Please consider commenting.

I pinged you previously, but there was no response. This may be the last notification before the vote is closed.

Also, merry Christmas!

--Gryllida (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Crat?
It's been suggested your crat bit should be toggled off under the privilege expiry policy. Have you any preference on the matter? --Pi zero (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, it was done. --Pi zero (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

'''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.


 * 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.



How we will see unregistered users
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)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your recent (in)activity
Hello. From what I noticed, your last edit was July 2021, and your last activity log was March 2021, both two years ago. Per WN:PEP, those inactive for at least two years will lose their user permission rights, like "administrator" rights. I've not yet requested de-adminship. Actutally, this is just a notice. I may have to re-notify you soon before my request. George Ho (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm giving you a (belated) second notice about your last activity, which was still in 16 July 2021. Per WN:PEP, if inactive for at least two years, you will potentially lose your adminship. I will request de-adminship soon if I've not yet seen you edit within 730 days after your last activity. --George Ho (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

De-sysopping you requested
I made a request to de-sysop you (Requests for permissions/Removal/TUFKAAP). You shall comment there. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A steward has been contacted at Meta to begin this process. We hope you will re-engage with us in the near future! You and your contributions are welcome here!--Bddpaux (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)