Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
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 more than 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, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. 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) 01:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
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 more than 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, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. 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. — xaosfluxTalk00:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
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 more than 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, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. 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. — xaosfluxTalk05:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Old Boy?" Oy, looks like I was gone a bit too long this time, lulz. I can't haz adminz. I remember back in the dusty days of 08-09 when it was fiercely debated (citation needed) whether admin rights could be stripped. I was adamantly opposed to indefinite admin rights and thought they should retire with inactivity. Glad to see that is what's happening! In brighter news, the Twins are above .500, all is well in the world. Thanks for stopping by Xeno and TC. :-) Keeper | 7600:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Always good to see your name pop up on my watchlist, even if it's just to say that you still don't want to hang out with us anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm just that kind of guy, Floq. Although, in my current state of nostalgia digging through my talkpage archives from the past year, I found the nuke/don't nuke discussion for WP:AN/K. Some kind words were said there and I had a good chuckle. I can't believe I started gnoming about in this place coming up on 10 years ago. Good times! Be well - Keeper | 7601:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Surely there are some twins articles that need some fluffing/protecting/zhuzhing/admin stuff is easy for any one with common sense....but srsly hope all is well... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So glad to see you pop up in my watchlist, and glad I had my monthly ish check in to see this. Twinkies above .500 and Vikes have a QB. Crazy season in St. Olaf! Hope you're well. AN:K and the current state of the White House. Oof StarM03:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Keeper76. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Maybe not a wild one. It's been 10 years since you gave encouragement to me when I first started editing. I've never forgotten your kindness and good advice. Take care. --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rexx - thanks for stopping by once again! 10 years, really?? Gosh. I thought I was an old guy back then, what does that make me now? Keeper | 7604:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everything about that game was horrible and terrible and horrible. At about 1:30 left, a non-football-literate friend of mine asked why the Vikings were using their timeouts at that particular juncture. I then proceeded to explain roughly how the game would go on to end. :-( Ed is a Saints fan[talk][majestic titan]00:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why did I think you were a Pats/Sox fan, Ed? The terrible, horrible, no good, very bad games were the two that followed. StarM02:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This team is insane. You have a crap pass D, and we run. Luckily I like Brees, but I have no idea how he didn't light up Giants' D StarM01:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you done with Eli yet? Saquon looks high potential. OBJ looks like a diva. I'll take my Diggs/Thielen/Cousins trio any day over the mess in NY. Good to hear from you as always Star! Keeper | 7601:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A good way to start is to start reading and think, "is there anything about this that could be made better?" Essentially, an article should fulfil the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Have a look at WP:FAC though. There are not many American football articles that are Featured, so some more interest would be fantastic! Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, wait, wait. You want me, a diehard, pain-loving, heartbroken lifelong Vikings fan - to help you get a PACKERS article to FA status? Dream on, Cas :-) (and seriously, good work. I glanced at it, it looks very well written) Keeper | 7601:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This should be like FB...and I can reply with an XD emoticon...oh wait....File:Kapbex.jpg
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Keeper76. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
It's the doldrums for this northerner. The local football team found a spectacular way to grasp defeat from the claws of victory and missed the playoffs. In better sports, pitchers don't report for over a month. What to do. Keeper | 7604:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
snowshoe? At least Ed will be happy - rooting for his boys and grateful to them for drop kicking the Beagles. Is your basketball team any good? Last I followed them,Christian Laettner was drafted. Hope you're well StarM04:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: The pings are so fancy, right? Much better than having to leave {{talkback}} everywhere. No lawsuit from me, but next season could be rough. Literally the last chance, because there's no way they'll be able to meet Michael Thomas' asking price. (But they don't have a first round pick. Or third. Or fourth. Sigh.) Ed[talk][majestic titan]06:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: let's see if I did that right. Last year with Brees too, right or do you think he goes another year? Michael Thomas is fun to watch as is Kamara. Plus as a Giants' fan I'm duty-bound to love Ingram. Keep, hope you're thawed from this week's awful weather. StarM03:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StarM: You did! It has to be the last year for Brees. After this, the salary cap will start catching up with them. Like, there's no way they can keep Thomas after his rookie deal is up, they're not exactly going to get a lot of low-cost drafted players this year, and there will be $10.5 million in dead money for Brees alone. Ed[talk][majestic titan]04:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: ooph, I feel you. Giants going to need rookie QB to come in Barkley year 3 to afford him, the QB and maybe OBJ. Although the cap has gone up, salaries have gone berserk. StarM19:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5 months (to the day!) later, and here we meet again! Hope you get to go to the stadium, I'm hoping to go for Game 3. Go Twins! Keeper | 7623:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hah, clearly didn't look before I commented. Merging my note below into this section. I didn't make it, but hope to for ALCS if they make it. Too funny that we had a two sport rivalry weekend StarM21:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.
We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kiana Madeira. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dinnydee (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles William Ledbetter until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Patapsco913 (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A year to the day later! I found my password (and don't have a recovery email, so it was actually serendipitous...). Sanchez and Urshela both one-and-done, on to greener pastures. The Twins Way (tm). Never much cared for Gary. Gio was fun to watch. Hope you're well, TC! :-) Keeper | 7623:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you were removed from Missing Wikipedians. Glad to see you're still around, even if only for a little while! I hope life has been treating you well :) Acalamari02:59, 18 March 2023 (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 more than 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, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. 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) 01:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=logo}
Resolved