User talk:Linuxbeak

Send me your e-mail. I want to always keep in touch with you. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm posting to inform you of an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat removal, which is of relevance to you as an en.wiki bureaucrat. The discussion centres around whether bureaucrat status should be considered a 'lifetime' appointment like administrators, or whether bureaucrats should be subject to periodic reconfirmation in a manner more like the stewards. There is also consideration for a separate re-evaluation of the status of those bureaucrats who were promoted in the early days of wikipedia, when the standards at RfB were significantly lower than they are currently, and whether such users still retain the explicit trust of the community.

As an "inactive bureaucrat" (one who has not performed a 'crat action in the past year), we're particularly keen to hear your thoughts on these issues; in particular the following:

• Do you consider yourself to still be a wikipedia bureaucrat in spirit, or is the flag essentially just a legacy? Do you have any intention of ever returning to being an 'active' bureaucrat?
• What do you consider your position to be in terms of your 'mandate' from the community, in comparison to more recently-promoted bureaucrats?
• Would you be amenable to surrendering the bureaucrat flag, or participating in a reconfirmation RfB, if asked to do so? In what circumstances would you consider such an action?

Your thoughts on these, and any other comments you may have, would be very much appreciated. We have set up a section on the discussion page, Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat removal#'Crat comments, for such responses.

Many thanks in advance, Happy‑melon 23:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Do you really think it's kosher to full-protect your user talk page?

Came across a familiar face when looking through WP:FB... reliving Wikimemories now. I haven't been in IRC in the longest time, and don't think I could handle getting back into it. How are you? — BRIAN0918 • 2009-09-02 17:37Z

A bureaucrat discussion has been opened in order to determine the consensus in this request for adminship. Please come participate. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Yea verily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. œ^™ 09:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you just edited a few days ago, so I hope you'll read this before the end of 2012. Going down a rabbit trail, I just saw your log entries for blocking JarlaxleArtemis on 18 September 2005; very funny :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Linuxbeak. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Ramesh Ramaiah talk 01:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Dear Linuxbeak,

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 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 03:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Following the drama at BN, I'm trying to come up with a statement all Crats could agree to. Please take a look, below. I am quite content to do this onwiki -we have always worked transparently, except where secrecy is essential (ie RTV). I think we should be able to wordsmith a statement acceptable to all, and I think it's an important thing to do.

1. In my opinion, this issue has come about through an unfortunate proliferation of documentation: policy, guideline, how-to etc
2. I am not convinced that there is community consensus on all of the points encapsulated in those various pages
3. I am unhappy at what may be described as some or all of: inconsistencies, inaccuracies or lack of clarity in that documentation
4. I do not believe that any of the issues we have faced have been caused by Crats trying to widen their powers
5. I would like to see the issues clarified, based on consensus, and for the documentation to be updated accordingly
6. I'd like to thank Griot-de for generously withdrawing the rename request

Signed [crat sig] Lmk what you think. Many thanks, --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2013 (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) 04:35, 2 March 2013 (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. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up, per Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal_of_permissions, this will need to include the bureaucrat permission as well as the administrator one. Wizardman 15:15, 30 March 2013 (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. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Ccbs.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:37, 23 May 2015 (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]

Template:Verror2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Numchange has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In use has been nominated for merging with Template:Under construction. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. JsfasdF252 (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright about whether images of Civil Air Patrol ribbons which you originally uploaded to the English Wikipedia, and which now reside at Commons, are really exempt from copyright. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ReportVandal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/JarlaxleArtemis, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/JarlaxleArtemis and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/JarlaxleArtemis during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Thebirdlover (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]