Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

Dersonlwd Talk 04:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, thanks much for filling in Angkor. Have been wanting to get around to it, but glad you did it! Fuzheado 03:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, it was my pleasure. I was just impressed that all of those places already had pages.

Removing redirects just because one page has more links is a poor reason. It just so happens that most of those links came from US military articles. Eventually, there will be many articles on the cities and municipalities of Leyte and Samar (the provinces) that it will match the military articles for links. I'm sorry, I should've used the summary box. --seav 21:51, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

BTW, the same thing goes for Bicol, the language Bikol deserves to be linked from a disambiguation page because an alternative spelling to the language's name is Bicol. --seav 22:14, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that they're really very ambiguous. For example, Samar province is part of Samar. If someone links to Samar, and they meant the province and not the island, then all they have to do is click on the Samar province link that's prominently displayed under the list of provinces. This is exactly as much work as you have to do with the redirect page. But if you meant the island then you're already in the right spot. I agree that the truly correct link for the island is Samar (island), which is why when I wrote the page for it, I put it on the island page. But if someone links to just Samar, they're going to mean the island most of the time anyway, since the island is intrinsically more interesting than the province.

Likewise, for Bicol, I think it's sufficient to add near the top that Bicol is another name for the language, followed by the link to the language page.

Wikipedia already has a lot of situations handled this way. For example, the state of New York is under New York, while the city of New York is under New York City, with a prominent link to New York City at the top. I added a page for the Great Lakes (Africa), but rather than turn Great Lakes into a disambiguating page, I added a link at the top of the page. It just seemed politer to both users and writers. -- Walt Pohl 08:04, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree that most people will link to Samar, the island, instead of Samar the province. It's the same thing as Leyte. Both the island and the province of Leyte are mentioned in almost equal times in local news that I read. The same goes for Samar. The reason why there are many articles that link to both the island right now in Wikipedia is because of the US Military stuff, and the WWII stuff.

Have you read the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page? Look under the Types of disambiguation section. There it says that for multiple article that share the same name, they are either equal in importance or one is overwhelmingly used. That's why Paris is about the French capital with a pointer to Paris (disambiguation) which points to other Parises like Paris, Texas and Paris (mythology) (the Trojan War character). Most will agree that the French capital shouldn't be just under Paris, France.

But there is equal disambiguation: which Mercury is more important? Is it the planet? The chemical element? The Roman god of trade? In this case, most will agree that the Mercury page is itself a disambiguation page.

I am contending that Samar and Leyte (and to a lesser degree, Bicol) will fall under the latter type of disambiguation. Just because the provinces are within the island doesn't mean that they are less important than the island.

But look at this rule on the same page.

Specific instances

On a page called Title, generally do not disambiguate:

* Title County

* Title City

* Title Hospital

* Title University

Don't you think this applies here? It's exactly the same situation. Importance is not the only criterion. What's more important? New York the state, or New York City? Yet, we manage without a disambiguating page.

For examples like Paris and Mercury, it's not just that they're ambiguous, it's that the different examples have nothing to do with each other. Here, if I say something is a city in Samar province, and I link to the top-level Samar, have I even gotten anything wrong? Samar the island and Samar the province are just not different enough to impose on everyone the work of disambiguating every single link to Samar.

There's also a point of etiquette here. Look at this comment from the disambiguation page:

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix the mis-directed links that will be created when the disambiguation page is made.

I think that's an important consideration. -- Walt Pohl 23:17, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I will concede. What convinced me was the way Ireland was handled. Ireland the country (i.e., the Republic of Ireland) occupies just a part of the island of Ireland, but the two are somewhat equivalent in importance. In fact, the country is probably more important (when current news simply says "Ireland", usually the country is meant). Wikipedia, however, chose to do what you did for Samar and Leyte. --seav 15:45, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected Areas. I keep an eye on it and contribute from time to time. I note that all your "to-dos" are done so you might find something in this project to occupy your talents. Tiles 07:18, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tragically, they're only "done", i.e. they're really minimal stubs I hope to rewrite. But don't worry, I'm planning on working on parks pages anyway (primarily for Africa). -- Walt Pohl 08:04, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments on List of Late Antique, Early Christian and Medieval art monuments. I agree, to a point. If nothing else, the title is atrocious. However, if one were to take an Art History course on medieval art, about 80% of these monuments would be covered. I do think that a list of this sort is needed. (Actually I think that an even more comprehensive list is needed.) The list could organized differently (It is now in roughly chronolical order. The many links to nowhere is a problem, but I intend, in the fullness of time, to start many of these articles.David Stapleton 14:24, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

At "pages needing attention" you wrote this:

Complex number - reads like it was originally copied from an old source. --Walt Pohl 18:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to what you had in mind? Do you object to its having been copied, or to the age of the source, or what? I have some experience teaching most of the material on this page in classrooms at MIT and elsewhere. The page is clearly not intended to bring people up to speed on current research or anything like that -- if it were, it would be on any of a great number of narrower topics. I don't see why a source written in 1930 would be any worse than one written in 2000 just because of its age, in an article of this kind. But maybe if you mention more specific points I'll understand what you're trying to say. Michael Hardy 21:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I had two concerns. First, that it was taken from a source still under copyright. Second, that since the source is old, that the terminology or the history might be out of date. (For example, I've never heard the term "direction coefficient".) Walt Pohl 19:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for the initial articles for the missing sporadic groups. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 22:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was sick of seeing those entries on the list of year-old requests. -- Walt Pohl 08:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See my talk page --KayEss 05:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You'd best do it. I have no idea how to list things for deletion... --KayEss 22:54, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

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

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

Option 1

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

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

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

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

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

Can you please discuss your changes on the talk page for that article? That is a pretty radica change, and while I don't think it currently helped, I welcome your edits and hope you will keep working on it. - Taxman 14:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

But you're not Walter Pohl the Late Antique Scholar? Or are you? Oh wait -- are you the Walt Pohl that comments at CT, Dr. B, etc.?

I have an active dream life, so I can't rule out that I'm a sleepwalking Late Antique Scholar. Is CT Crooked Timber? Then that's me. -- Walt Pohl 01:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello & happy new year. I see that you are a contributor since early 2004 and you've made a lot of edits on many topics, and equally important you seem able to get along with other editors. I will sponsor you for administratorship if you are interested. You may reply here or on my talk page. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 07:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would definitely be interested. I appreciate you noticing my contributions. -- Walt Pohl 18:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Terrific! Please reply at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Waltpohl to accept the nomination. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 01:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Walt Pohl 02:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, Walt. Use your awesome powers wisely! I'm sure you will continue to be a credit to the project. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 04:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Would you, please, consider participation in the discussion about the naming of the articles on rivers? Certain users suggested that the word "River" should be omitted from the title. Currently the discussion is held at User talk:Markussep#River naming, but it will hopefully be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers soon. Thank you for your attention.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 21:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Walt.

In case you didn't follow the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Reformat of Participants list, I'm writing to you to let you know that I've converted the "WikiProject Mathematics Participants List" into a table. It is now alphabetical, includes links to the participant's talk page and contribution list, and has a field for "Areas of Interest". Since your name is on the list, I thought you might want to check and/or update your entry.

Regards, Paul August ☎ 15:10, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've been removing links to a disambiugation page; so that Special:Whatlinkshere/mercury isn't so polluted I can't figure out what's linking to it. Because I've been changing so many pages (I don't watch them otherwise I'd have thousands of pages being watched), I hadn't realised you'd changed it back, which is why the changes were made a second time. Do you have a burning desire to link a year old conversation directly to that disambiguation page rather than indirectly via an external link? Josh Parris ✉ 23:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the dependency on large cardinals to the section header. Hope this addresses your concern. The point is that a coherent picture emerges in the presence of large cardinals, and that's what I want to get across, not lose it in a lot of graphs of what depends on what.

Howdy...we've been making some alterations to infoboxes and the project that you may wish to be aware of and have an opportunity to discuss in the protected areas project. Link to the "general" and the "status" subpages to see what's going on.--MONGO 05:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics. Michael Hardy 20:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you've edited before (Henry the Navigator) is nominated for Biography Collaboration of the Week. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 20:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my error with regard to the redirect. I was only familiar with recursive/co-recusive with regard to computability. Since you seem to have a much better understanding, could you create an article (or at least a stub) to replace the redirect I created. Thanks. Kenj0418 07:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Walt, looks like you are semi-retired, but you might like to know that I have been thinking of trying to improve articles on Gröbner basis stuff, including Syzygy, where I think a much more intuitive discussion should be possible, and also adding other stuff as per Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms and other textbooks, including

• Schenck, Hal (2003). Computational Algebraic Geometry. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-53650-2.

plus the books of Sturmels. I had a pretty awful time trying to improve general relativity articles, but some have suggested that I might find pure math less crank infested. Reply by email, perhaps?---CH 00:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried sending you email, but I might have the wrong address. (It did not bounce, though.) Did you get any? -- Walt Pohl 03:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Walt, good to hear from you. Can you try again, this time putting your name in the subject line? I am trying to debug after some recent changes.---CH 19:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear with me, if this doesn't work you might need to try again after I have shot the trouble with a sysadmin, which could take a few days. ---CH 19:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email: never mind, the problem was at my end and I am fixing it. I did get your email and have replied. ---CH 20:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Walt,

I've tracked you down as the culprit who wrote that the Sudanese Zande live in the area of the Uele River. Isn't the Uele in the DR Congo only? Do you have any other info about where they are? I had a Zande friend from Aba in southern Sudan, but I have no info that's more specific. Cheers. Dblomgren 03:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just changing links from Uele to Uele River. I have no information on the subject, sadly. -- Walt Pohl 06:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing some of your editorial interests, I'd like to invite you to join and help form Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance. --Leifern 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I created a template for World Heritage Sites: {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}. Since many of the protected areas are also recognized as World Heritage Sites, I thought that it will be appropriate to forward this template here, and hopefully, for the community to help improve the template. Someone mentioned that the footnotes are unclear (i.e. why the need to emphasize "official" there). It's because the official name (or the name as inscribed on the List) is different from what we usually know. And the Region also has footnote to tackle specifically the classification of those regions which may fall ambiguously between two continents (e.g. those in Russia, Turkey, Cyprus, etc.). In addition, I think that the info provided in the template is much like a jargon for most readers since it box is more of use for internal references in the World Heritage program. I hope that the community will help improve the template and make it more relevant to the readers of wikipedia in general. Thanks. Joey80 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I slightly changed the definition of prime ring, see Talk:prime ring. I hope that was ok. Cheers, AxelBoldt 15:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Walt, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 00:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, have a look at Talk:Subnet (mathematics). (The article you have created.) --Kompik 10:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Waltpohl,

I appreciate the fact that you wrote a improved copy of the page, Atlas (topology) 4 years ago but I still have some criticism:

• You referred to a manifold as a 'complicated space'; this word is not mathematical and doesn't explain what a manifold really is
• Additional to this, you wrote that a manifold is made up of 'simple spaces'. According to this, a 'simple space' could be an open interval in R. But any open interval in R is also a manifold (being homeomorphic to R) which means that according to a space can be 'simple' and 'compicated' at the same time
• There is no such concept of a 'simple space' in mathematics anyhow. There is such thing as a simple function (often used in measure theory), however.
• Worst of all, you haven't included the actual definition of an atlas
• However, the article suggests that you obivously know what an atlas is and what it is mathematically described as.

Therefore, I am compelled to ask you why you wrote the article in a non-formal manner. Could you please tell me why? In any case, I will propose that parts of the article be rewritten.

Thanks

Topology Expert (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you address the question at Talk:Artin–Zorn theorem? Thanks. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In group theory, an oligomorphic group is a particular kind of.....

Hello.

I think "In group theory,..." fails to tell the lay reader that mathematics is what this is about. "In geometry,..." or "In algebra,..." or "In number theory,..." or "In calculus,..." or "In arithmetic,..." works, but the typical lay person would probably not have heard of group theory. I've changed it to this:

In group theory, a branch of mathematics, an oligomorphic group is a particular kind of.....

Michael Hardy (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine. -- Walt Pohl (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brews told me that he won't be able to edit Wikipedia for the coming few weeks. So, I think you can go ahead and make the edits to the article that are necessary. Brews told me to keep an eye on the article (he feared that it would be railroaded to deletion via PROD or AFD with few editors commenting there). Of course, I would always give my indpendent opinion on the article; I don't have any strong opinions right now. Count Iblis (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. -- Walt Pohl (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Waltpohl,

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

So a few things about the interviews:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.115.210 (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes, ^†2†ťəäçħ^†4†ӛṿəř (22:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

(Here's a pie to go along with your birthday card! :-) †2†ťəäçħ†4†ӛṿəř 22:24, 10 January 2015 (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, 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. Acalamari 10:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a recently returned sysop, welcome back to the admin corps. We always need help at WP:ADMINBACKLOG if there are any areas you can help with that would be most welcomed. Happy mopping! — xaosflux ^Talk 18:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have just noticed that you contributed a lot to write about suspension (topology). I have tried to write about desuspension, an opposite operation. May you review my work? I am not a professional mathematician, but high-profile math has been my passion since my childhood. Cheers!

Lamro (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Waltpohl. 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)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[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) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waltpohl.

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) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Waltpohl a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Lepricavark (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Walt, I made my first edit in years and it led me to review your Talk page. That led me to look at the UNCOL page. I remember all that and, although I knew Mel Conway, I had no idea he made the original proposal. The last time I saw Tom Steele, at some sort of standards-related meetings, I told him I remembered UNCOL and he winced and laughed. I notice that LLVM and another approach are now listed, but I am surprised the JVM and the .NET Common Language Runtime and intermediate language are not mentioned. I sort of gave up on Wikipedia when I saw how the Ariane 501 loss was clung to as a software bug example when that completely clouds the magnificent chain of events that led to a completely unnecessary mishap. My interest in computation theory has taken a different direction and I don't know that there is anything that would lead me to address it on Wikipedia :). Orcmid (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from member list

You have been inactive for more than 6 months and have been removed from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee birthday list. If you become active again please feel free to re-add yourself
Best wishes, A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 15:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Waltpohl,

If you restore a draft or user page deleted for CSD G13 criteria, you need to make a minor edit to the page afterwards or it immediately becomes eligible for deletion again. If you expect to be doing this more, like helping out at WP:REFUND, you should install the script at User:SD0001/RFUD-helper which will do these minor edits for you. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Walt Pohl (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Waltpohl, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username FormalDude, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, AlphaPolis, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlphaPolis.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|FormalDude}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

––FormalDude (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: The worst part about these bot-executed actions is the fake-polite boilerplate. Welcome to Wikipedia? I've been here for more than a decade.

Ironically, if I was new this would be the opposite of welcoming. The Wikipedia editing process is dominated by interactions like this. All of the rewards for petty, bot-driven policy actions. (I use bots myself, so I'm not innocent.) The rewards for creating new content is essentially zero. -- Walt Pohl (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gustave Lefebvre 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/Gustave Lefebvre 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 until the discussion has finished.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Blowing down has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 14 § Blowing down until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]