User talk:Joke137

This user may have left Wikipedia. Joke137 has not edited Wikipedia since June 13, 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archive: 1 2

in your listing of Licorne accounts, it seems that 66.194.98.242 is not yet listed. Got banned yesterday-or-so.

I do recommend sorting the entries by number - it makes it easier to see if something's already listed. --Alvestrand 05:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually listed, but I agree that page was a mess so I have sorted it with the couple of blocks I've made today. To be honest, I'm not sure it continues to serve much purpose to continue to record every IP address he uses. –Joke 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the 66.194.98.0/24 block (City of Clearwater, according to RIPE), I agree it does not make sense, since he seems to be using most of the range; more numbers is just continuing the same behaviour. Probably a good idea to record others, though. --Alvestrand 06:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You might not be aware of that, but articles on WP that exist over a week or so almost automatically land in one of the top spots in Google searched due to priority given to Wikipedia links by Google.
2. I am not saying that there is no place for articles such as cobordism, but I believe it is not a really Good Article unless it would be accessible to the common reader. We expect people writing articles on technology or even computer games or those Pokemons to write them so that everybody can understand them, so I see no reason why maths or physics articles should be exempt from this criterium. That said, I do believe that creating a universally understandable article on a topic from advanced maths or physics is much harder than on many other topics, but, well, that's just the way life is.
3. Let me reiterate - I am not trying to argue there is no place in WP for articles that are not instantly accessible to all readers (though I believe all articles should ultimately strive for that). I am just trying to argue to turning the entire WIAGA upside down is not a good idea. Not all articles have automatically be Good Articles, and no editor has to strive for this status. So, there is no need to disrupt the work of the Good Articles Project without an actual reason.

I can expand on that more, but I am really tired and I am trying to work on some actually important things in the meantime. This whole discussion consumes almost the entire time I have for WP. Bravada, talk - 02:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to maintain the same numbering as in my talk page:

1. Google has a "link scoring" system in order to have the more valuable and relevant links show up first regardless of how often is the searched word repeated in the page's meta heading and stuff, and Wikipedia has the honor of being one of the highest-scored sites in the system. I think they even have special constraints programmed in for Wiki pages - see how the main GA page would appear if you search for "good articles", but not all other GA pages or talk pages.

2. & 3. I am genuinely very, very happy that we seem to think alike on that! I was trying to make some "hardliners" realize how futile this whole debacle is, but apparently all I have achieved is getting some angry comments in my talk page...

Anyway, I hope we are getting closer to common understanding, or to the understanding that this was a misunderstaning, and we can continue working on both article development and the GA process proceedings further :D Bravada, talk - 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was only able to give it a brief run through before having to head off to work here but I really like it so far. I think you're onto something. :) Agne 17:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A masterpiece of trying to keep everyone happy, and I say that in a good way. Would you have any objections to my putting your name forward for Kofi Annan's job? qp10qp 14:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to see your (devestatingly apt, and sad) dialog about reference police making it too difficult to do the actual writing, and I just had a comment I wanted to make. I sympathize, a lot - IMO, no one should be required to any more than provide one (or maybe two) references (and by this I mean nothing more than a naked URL at minimum, or a author-title for offline refs). Asking someone who actually adds content to concern themselves with any more than that is idiotic, and anti-wiki, and I'd be very glad to tell off anyone you point out to me who does this. However, I do believe that pedantic, fully cited, templatized, copious references are useful (and I enjoy finding and putting them in), so I also strongly believe that all this complicated structure should be allowed, and authors should be gently reminded of WP:OWN if they complain about wikignomes messing with their deathless prose. But such fixing, detail adding, and polishing, should be left to the WikiGnomes - asking authors to do it (unless they want to) is a terrible idea. Just had to get this off my chest. I wish you the best of luck in whatever you are doing, on-wiki or off. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Cosmic inflation - was there a particular reason for removing the WMAP image? IMO, while it wasn't directly related to the article, it had enough in common that it provided some pictoral means of interpretation to a reader less familiar with the subject (not to say that the image you added is any less useful to the article, but it's not as accessible - and images are always a good way to entice a reader to continue reading). It certainly needed some formatting/proper positioning, though. I don't particularly have a strong opinion one way or the other, it just seemed that removal of the image (particularly without any justification in the edit summary or on the talk page) seemed a little arbitrary. 192.91.147.34 15:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was no strong reason for removing it. My rationale was that (i) it was poorly formatted (ii) it wasn't clear to me exactly what was being communicated with the image (iii) I was a little uncomfortable using a press release image like that (not because there is any problem with the copyright, just because it seems somehow odd to use those graphics...). If you want to reinsert it, or if we can find a good use for it, that would be great. –Joke 16:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the image could probably be cropped a little to cut out the large black border. –Joke 16:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you go through redshift and remove the citation needed references that you think can be removed and keep the ones you think should stay? I really trust your judgement on these matters. --ScienceApologist 11:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{Re: your message on my talk page.) Please, change the quality and importance ratings of articles as you see fit (discussing on the talk page for the article if you think the change will be controversial). The main place the info resides is on the talk page of the article - when a rating is changed there, it will be automatically picked up and updated on the list of articles. My main aim on WP at the moment is to tag all physics articles with Template:Physics, mostly unclassified, in the hope that people will then classify them (and re-classify them as appropriate in the future). Mike Peel 16:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On March 4 2005 you did a major rewrite on this topic. Under the heading of Comological Constant you inserted a reference to the anthropic principle (something unscientific) but the real problem was that you said Steven Weinberg was a physicist who supports the anthropic principle as an explanation for the cosmological constant. Do you have any proof that Weinberg is a supporter of the anthropic principle since the man is actually a famous athiest and critic of both religion and the anthropic principle? When I read this I thought it was a joke, especially because the only supporter of the anthropic principle listed was actually a sworn enemy of it. Then I researched this and found that it started with you and your user name happnes to be Joke137. It was sad to see that so many editors failed to notice this from March to October. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.154.132 (talk • contribs)

It would be sad to see that so many editors failed to notice it from March to October, except that it happens to be true. Read the reference I inserted if you don't believe me. –Joke 15:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy,

Thanks for correcting what was awkward, in first paragraph, and trying to make it better. That article could use some streamlining, for sure, as many parts are confusing. One edit you made was to remove my word believed (probably mis-spelled) and I made some commentary on the Talk page, which I copied below. In my opinion,it might make sense to insert some conditional, but I invite your comment. People coming to this subject from Astrophysics background might differ with String Theory and Particle Physics guys on the subject, about what is proven fact, and what's still just theory. I see you are frequent contributor and ardent editor. Keep up the good work! JonathanD 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I agree that the article can use some streamlining. I am in the midst of a rather large rewrite of the article, which means I am improving the referencing, content and organization but probably not always producing the most lucid prose. Hopefully that will come in time, and when I submit the article to peer review and eventually as a featured article candidate. See my comments on the Talk:Cosmic inflation page. –Joke 19:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object on your watchlist? What's your opinion on this article? --Pjacobi 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had never seen the article before. It is the usual kind of science-cruft. Non-peer reviewed papers from the arXiv or papers published in third-rate journals somehow get long Wikipedia articles, despite getting little attention in the scientific community. Their authors – or cultish followers intent on fringe theories they found in New Scientist – work up extensive Wikipedia articles, which nobody can be bothered to fact-check or bring in conformance with NPOV because there is so much work to be done writing real articles about subjects of actual prominence. Usually their authors cite the fact that nobody has bothered to refute the (n^th iteration of the) particular pet theory as evidence that it is correct, or at the very least that the NPOV, NOR and V policies don't permit us to label the article as the kind of fringe science it manifestly is. (Sadly, they may be correct.)

This is one of the biggest problems facing science writing on Wikipedia today, and I'm not really sure how to deal with it. Probably you wanted an opinion about the actual article, though, not ruminations on the deficiencies of Wikipedia. One of the pests that keeps coming up again and again on black hole, general relativity and even in the scientific literature is the confusion of the tautological statement "it is not possible to send a signal from inside a black hole to an observer outside" with the manifestly false statement "black holes never actually form." As far as I can tell, this comes from people's inability to understand the causal structure of the simple Penrose diagram of a Schwarzschild black hole. Quantum mechanically, things are a little different. The recent work by Hawking has to do with how unitarity is preserved in the Euclidean path integral because the path integral has zero measure on worldsheets in which a black hole forms compared to worldsheets on which no black hole forms. This is a quantum mechanical statement, which he has argued only for anti-de Sitter space, and classically it is probably best to go about our lives as if black holes actually exist. –Joke 18:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I feared.

Now I recall I first stumbled over this some months back, when User:Nichalp created Abhas Mitra. Nichalp a really nice, valueable contributor but AFAIK without domain knowledge took the article on rediff.com for face value.

So now we have one more of those articles. At least be it should be OK to refuse mentioning the subject in other articles?

Would you consider it more or less notable than e.g. Gravastar? I assume less, as the Gravastar often gets mentioned in passing in populare science magazines and websites.

To show my lack of knowledge of the subject matter, isn't it the case that whether or nor you can observe the completion of black hole forming depends on your frame of refence and of the global geometry of space time? At least I read this Baez essay that way and even voiced the opinion at Talk:Black_hole#Danras_edits_and_the_three-revert_rule.

Back to the MECO article: Do you see any chance (or even motiviation) to sanitize the article?

And heck, there's also Twin Quasar. And the obligatory New Scientist article.

Pjacobi 18:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is less notable than gravastar, although the concept of a gravastar seems to be one that is mainly communicated in the popular press. Thanks for the Baez link – that is exactly the sort of thing I was intent on saying, plus it includes the useful observation that the last photon coming from the nascent black hole emerges in finite time. Of course I agree with everything Baez says; my point is that although in theory (if not in practice) the signals of the hole forming take arbitrarily long to reach you, that doesn't mean the hole hasn't yet formed because there exists a time after which it would be causally impossible for you to go and prevent the hole from forming.

Yes, I think the best thing to do is to avoid mentioning this in, say, the black hole article. The article as it is is long and so difficult to understand that it would be hard to fix, short of cutting it down to a stub. Sentences like

The observational and theoretical arguments which actually proved that the Galactic Black Hole Candidates (GBHC) are Eternally Collapsing Objects containing strong intrinsic equipartition magnetic field in lieu of an Event Horizon (EH) was first shown in an important paper published by two American astrophysicists, Robertson and Leiter.

are, aside from being some of the most tortured English I've read in weeks, not an opinion held by very many people. –Joke 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per the comments you made on Ageo020's talk page, I just wanted to let you know that I moved all 41 articles from Category:String theory physicists to Category:String theorists. Nishkid64 21:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joke: thanks for the note. I don't yet have any pre-conceived notions about the proposal, other than the misleading title. They *may* (I'll study them in more detail later today) describe good practices for math or physics articles, but they need to be exposed to the broader community before they are labeled as "scientific" or as a guideline. For example, they might be problematic in biology, medicine, etcetera. I'll look at them in greater detail as soon as I have time; I just thought that adding them as a guideline and under such a broad title, with so little community exposure, was premature. Another thought: if they do become a math- or physics-specific guideline, then perhaps they would be better handled in Project, for example, as WP:MEDMOS handles medical articles — just an idea (that might not work, though, because MedMos adds to broader Wiki policies, rather than subtracting from them, prescribing additional items for medical articles). If they result in less stringent citations than are generally required in Wiki, I imagine you've all considered that articles won't meet FA requirements? Sandy (Talk) 15:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to respond in the last day, Joke. With the dangerous and devastating fire and deaths in California, I just don't have the focus right now; I put TS up at WP:FAC to keep distracted. I'm sure it will get sorted out. What about making use of a construct similar to Wikipedia:Manual of style (mathematics), as we've done at Medical? We just brought some of the citation/sourcing info from WP:RS into there ... Sandy (Talk) 16:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joke, I was struggling with how to deal with the need for making a distinction between for example a reference to an article that states "science is crap" purley for fact verification on the one hand, and worthwhile references for consultation on the other hand.

Thus I find your advice Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines very useful.

In order to avoid confusion with official guidelines, you might consider to rename it "Scientific_citation_tutorial", similar to Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial.

Thanks! Harald88 21:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite welcome! –Joke 03:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I have a fan! We've all got to have a thick skin, ideals, and irrational optimism to keep going here, but a bit of praise now and then helps, too. Thanks. --Art Carlson 08:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome! –Joke 04:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for including you in you my ArCom request for evidence, you are correct that the diffs do not show it, and I must've read it too quickly. Thanks for explaining your point of view. I have a couple of comments. I respect you opinion that I promote pseudoscientific theories, the question is whether I do it inappropriately. The Electric Universe, for example, I describe nowhere else, other than in the article on the subject, and I've never tried to include it in even "fringe" scientific subjects. And I agree that I give a more sympathetic point of view of such subjects, as (a) NPOV suggests:

"refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section .. We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible"(Fairness_of_tone)"

and (b)

"A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy"Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience

--Iantresman 10:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry, I didn't mean to revert that. (If you look through the [ridiculously long] history, you're the first person besides me to edit the page, which is why I didn't really monitor the history of the page) Thanks, AZ _t 02:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I do both, though whenever I edit the script on other software and copy+paste it into Wikipedia I usually make a lot of careless typos (then again, same when I edit directly). Most of the times though, for longer and more important fixes I don't work on the edit window, but to make small quick changes I just edit it directly. AZ _t 21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no comments for over two weeks at Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines. Do you think it might be time to make one more post on the math and physics talk pages and then edit the header to say consensus has been reached? CMummert 19:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recommendations in regards to Vancouver on its FAC. On November 22, 2006 the article became a featured article thanks to helpful tips and suggestions by users like you. Thank you again on behalf of the editors and members of the WikiProject Vancovuer. Mkdw^talk 00:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed that 21 centimeter radiation be merged into Hydrogen line, on the basis that they discuss applications of the same physical effect. I'm mentioning this here because you opposed this the last time it was proposed. Please let me know your thoughts over at Talk:Hydrogen line (and please don't bite me...). Thanks. Mike Peel 21:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just once in a while. Thanks. ⇨REDVEЯS 09:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think that you read his response and that coloured your view of my message to him. If you'd care to re-read my original message without the preconception cast upon it (as Natalya did, for instance), it reads completely different. Wikipedia talk messages, like email, SMS and other text-based systems, do not have a "tone" that a reasonable person can read into them, so it's probably best not to try. You might also want to read this post he made inbetween, suggesting one of our most trusted editors (a CheckUser, indeed) was not to be trusted - just so you can see the full facts and not jump to your friend's conclusions. Matter closed, okay? Thanks! ⇨REDVEЯS 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.

If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Wikipedia:Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.

If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay (Talk) 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 03:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Cosmic Inflation you say that the flatness and cosmological constant problems are sometimes called the "Dicke coincidences". Confusingly, among the three references cited is Dicke's 1961 Nature letter giving an anthropic explanation for Dirac's large number problem, which has nothing to do with either flatness or Lambda. This "Dicke coincidence" phrase is now percolating through Wikipedia as an alternative name for the large number problem, which I'd like to stamp out. As it happens I've never heard this phrase (in either suggested context) before reading Wikipedia, so if it's not a new coinage could you give a citation? PaddyLeahy 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Dirac's large number problem does have something to do with both flatness and Lambda. But that's besides the point – although I don't have my copy handy, the reference you're looking for is almost certainly the material on inflation in P.J.E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology. If you just want to confirm that the phrase is used by professional cosmologists, a search on Google scholar gives papers from people like Kamionkowski, Rees, Spergel, Peebles and Cornish on the first page. –Joke 02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've still removed the 1961 reference as it does not discuss either Dicke coincidence. PaddyLeahy 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 05:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his English isn't good, and he goes into way too much detail, thats why I took it off my watchlist. Ill look at it again this month. Ill also write him and suggest he start a blog or a Google Page on him for all the detail. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed that you had an interest in particle physics, so I wondered you could head over the List of baryons and Talk:List of baryons pages a give some feedback. I'm currently trying to bring that article to Featured List status, but I'm not a particle physicist so I probably made half a dozen mistakes. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Headbomb (talk · contribs) 21:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joke137! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 8 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Edward Kolb - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Shape of the Universe has an oddly capitalised title - note that the article itself uses "universe", all lower case. The MoS says "ordinary" capitalisation should be used, which means lowercase "u" here. So I boldly tried to move it to the lowercase title, but found you had previously moved it (see history) to its current title from what I think is probably the correct one. I don't see a pattern for upper-case words in cosmology articles, and it certainly goes against the grain in the rest of WP. I would just list it as an uncontroversial move, except it seems there might be some controversy originating from you. Of course that was a long time ago, so what's your take on it now? Hairy Dude (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two cites for the sentence you removed, one of which is the NYT which discusses the current arrest's anticipated impact on his political career. Steven Walling 04:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wording is better, thank you. :) Steven Walling 04:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. WilliamH (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Joke137! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2013 (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) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:WMAP 3yr TTTEPol.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned chart.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Picture(string theory). Since you had some involvement with the Picture(string theory) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cosmology 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/Cosmology 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.

Heanor (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that you have been added to Missing Wikipedians. IMiss2010 (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]