User talk:Dpmuk

RETIRED

This user no longer works as an administrator or copyright violation investigator. I still edit occasionally.

You've reached the user talk page of Dpmuk. This is where you can communicate with me but per the above notice I'm pretty much retired so may take some time to reply. I am unlikely to reply to queries about my past admin or copyright work. If however you are here about an edit I made in the last few days it is likely I will reply, but probably not quickly. To see the reasons my retirement pop over to my user page. Please remember to sign your posts by adding ~~~~ after your message. This will make it much easier for me to know who I'm talking to.

I manually archive this page after every 50 conversations, generally a few days after the 50th discussion appears to have finished. If your message is no longer here please check my archives.

Archives

WP:MRV Closing script

FYI

I have created a closing script for move reviews, which can found at User:Armbrust/closemrv.js. If you want to use it, than simply add

importScript('User:Armbrust/closemrv.js');

to your vector JS page and bypass your cache. (Not tested on monobook or modern either.) Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You received this message because you closed at least one MRV discussion in the last six months.

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal for a new rule for media adaptations and multimedia franchises

Greetings! There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal for a new rule for media adaptations and multimedia franchises, where the apparent inconsistency in results has been noted between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) (deleted by unanimous agreement) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resident Evil (disambiguation) (kept by a substantial consensus). Since you participated in one of these discussions, you may wish to contribute to our efforts to craft a useful compromise with respect to the proposal under discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 October 15

You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation). Join in the deletion review for your comments. --George Ho (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Whilst doing some research this afternoon, I stumbled across some postings by an editor referring to his editing on wikipedia. In particular, they were editing to support an agenda that was contrary to consensus. I'm uncertain about how to proceed, their editing is disruptive but in a petty way and its an WP:OUT minefield. Any suggestions? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Papworth

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Tom Papworth, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! SheffGruff (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_December#Haile_Selassie

Hi Dpmuk. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_December#Haile_Selassie. I'm sorry that you found my comments largely unhelpful. Note that the comment on "authorism" was a self-declared-bias, not an assertion that other's should also be authorist, although they might like to consider the point of view. Authorism is certainly not policy. I may have argued some lines a bit strong. If you were to have overturned to "no consensus", I think it is clear, given the arguments rehashed though more developed at MR, that a subsequent RM would have found a consensus to move. I do wish that all closers would give clear explanations on contested discussions. Thank you for your excellent explanation of the close, and I think you made the right close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your comments at WP:AN. I will try and prove the community's confidence in me by editing in a productive manner and avoid entering into conflict with other editors as in the past. You may be interested to note I have just launched the article Esteban Mestivier as I promised and I would welcome your input if you have a moment. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

probable typo

At [1] you have the phrase "head in the sound" -- thinking maybe that should be "sand"? NE Ent 03:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Changed. Doing well today! Dpmuk (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move review of Cannabis (drug)

Why in the world did you close this as overturn rather than relist? The discussion is still underway and in the same move request section. Yes, an RFC has been opened, but it has no authority to approve or disapprove a move. What are we supposed to do now? Open a new move request? Also, exactly what was your analysis? Considering the amount of discussion that's been invested in this, I thought you basically just phoned it in. You certainly did not offer a compelling analysis of why you called it the way you did. I urge you to change this to relist as the only sensible choice. Msnicki (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your closure at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 January#Cannabis (drug) (closed). It doesn't look good to have move reviews dragging out so long, so it's a relief that it's over. For what it's worth I had considered closing this, also with overturn. In a case like this any close will disappoint a group of people. Someday there could be a checkoff list for things that move reviewers are expected to consider, though it seems unlikely that consensus would be found for a list. The existing instructions to move reviewers at WP:MRV seem like an uneasy combination of different ideas of what a reviewer should do. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on additional discussion on my own talk page and the comments you've added to the still-open RfC indicating that the RM discussion should be considered part of the RfC, I'm completely satisfied with your close of the move review. Sorry to have bitten your head off. I also appreciate your stepping in to deal with a contentious situation. Warm regards, Msnicki (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to endorse

In this comment (diff) you wrote that "the consensus here is to endorse the close". I believe you made mistake. No such consensus exists in the discussion because no uninvolved editors commented the closure. Probably because heated debate over marihuana/canabis. Please leave this move review open for more time to allow other uninvolved editors to comment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it more frustrating that you ignored the broader problem of sockpuppetry, canvassing, and misuse of sources in the move requests. Instead, you challenged a perfectly good closure on a point of pedantry. Why is that, Antidiskriminator? bobrayner (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that marihuana/canabis heated debate affected this move review. Now, after marihuana/canabis debate is closed, I believe other noninvolved editors will participate in this discussion if you reopen it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You.

		The Good Friend Award
		Please accept this award as a token of good faith and for appreciation of you being a good sport. I apologize for getting snippy with you before...I was still wound up, and I needed that slap in the face. Vjmlhds 03:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually...

...it is policy, per WP:blocking policy#Block reviews, at least when it comes to declining unblock requests: Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Political status of Crimea

You overwrote the new article with an offending (points 2 and 5) redirect and protected it citing a nonsensical “reason” To match protection on Republic of Crimea (country). I give you exactly two hours to correct your mistake before appealing to the community. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops… I didn’t realize that the protection was only temporary. So I’m going to simply revert you, unless you tried to substantiate your nonsense by something like policy or consensus, not third-party users’ nonsenses and hate mongering. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So… we shall meet at AN/I discussing your outrages. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: RFUP: Political status of Crimea

Hello, Dpmuk. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Political status of Crimea.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken Deletion and Request to Implement Changes

Yes, you recently deleted Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation; this was not a duplicate article, this was the renaming being enacted. I would appreciate it if you could go ahead and re-do the change, but make the Accession of Crimea by the Russian Federation redirect to there. There is already a RM on the topic. It legally needs to be implemented. It is clear that the users arguing against the change are in the minority and are arguing against pretty much International consensus. They argue "NPOV" but the current title is extremelly biased towards the Russian viewpoint. As I'm sure you know the NPOV argument is aimed to please the majority...and the last time I checked, the nations of the European Union, Canada, the United States, Ukraine, and other European continental nations is a greater majority than simply Russia. On top of this, this article can be directly related to the "annexation" of Texas to the U.S. and the "annexation" of Bulgaria to Austro-Hungaria. Talk to me here please! Thanks and good day! :) მაLiphradicusEpicusთე

I see; how exactly would I go about putting in a request for closure (via template?)? Also, how will we reach a true "consensus" on this topic if so few people are actively talking about it? What I mean is...we have a plethora of people editing on here and I am sure that many, many of them have seen the Crimea arguments—but just are not actively speaking on the topic, this is no good! We cannot show the true consensus if these people are silent! :( Thoughts and ideas? Thanks and regards, მაLiphradicus Epicusთე :/

P.S., I also changed my signature to be a proper link to my Userpage--I was unaware that it did not link there and I appreciate you bringing that up to me!

Grocer's apostrophe

Hi Dpmuk

Thanks for the work you continue to do in semi-retirement. I hope you don't mind a quibble with the grammar of your user page.

At User:Dpmuk#Bot you currently [2] say all it's edits are being verified by me... should that not be all its edits are being verified by me (my emphasis) as its is a possessive determiner (often still called a possessive pronoun but that is not current linguistic terminology) and should not take the apostrophe (a possible example of grocer's apostrophe)?

Or have I missed something? Andrewa (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, quite correct. I know the difference but unfortunately this doesn't seem to translate into me getting it right when actually typing. Old habits die hard or something. Anyway just update that bit of my user page since it was horrendously out of date - it last edited in September 2012. Dpmuk (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I can relate to that. Thanks for the prompt reply (you're either a night owl or a different time zone to me, it's about 2:30am here - not wanting to violate your privacy, just I'm a bit cavalier about mine obviously) and action. Hang in there! Andrewa (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. I'm currently in Atlantic Daylight Time so it's the middle of the day here. That said I am a night owl and 2:30am is not unusual for me even if it's not exactly common. Dpmuk (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Silk episodes

Hi. Thank you for looking in to List of Silk episodes. However, while I started this article the information I added was just that contained in the old Silk (TV series) article. All further additions, including those that I have looked at and agree are copyrighted, were added by a different user. Could you please contact them in the future about issues surrounding the text on this page. Alternatively, delete the more recent edits that are those with the copyrighted text additions. Bruno Russell (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Chilling Effects Award (2014)

The Chilling Effects Award (2014)

For boldly and effectively dealing with a legal threat. Well done! This award has been awarded annually since 2011, and you are the winner for 2014. What you have done is hugely important, because of the massive negative effect of threats of legal action - some good faith editors can be literally terrified by quite banal threats. By helping to stamp out such threats with such rapidity, you have helped to solve the problem. Previous winners can be seen at User:Demiurge1000/Chilling Effects Award. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RNLB Keith Anderson (ON 1106)

Hello Dpmuk

Thank you for your interest and concerns in the text that you removed from the article which I created about the lifeboat RNLB Keith Anderson (ON 1106). I can assure you that I have written the article using several sources which include both written text and text found on line. The work I have done is written in my own words refencing different sources and any similarities are of an unintentional coincidence. I can say know more than that! if you think that I have copied it then anything I say to you at this stage is likely to be disputed by you, and I have no interest in getting into any long drawn out debate with you about this. I have much better things to do with my time. thank youCheeseladder (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Dpmuk

Well its nice to know that you do not have any intention in opening dialog about your concerns about my contributions with me. It is almost a week since I left you a message here. So much for Good Faith! hey. Good-by and god bless you, but our interaction ends here.Cheeseladder (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Thanks for linking to WP:DABNAME on Institute of Mathematics and Applications. I didn't even know there was a policy about naming disambiguation pages, although I probably should've by now. I'm sorry for the unneeded renaming, and thanks for the lesson! —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Sorry, but I've made those edits to the page in question because I previously had to clean house on this page and some of the articles regarding video game ratings due to vandals repeatedly adding examples of movies and games, as well as promoting their country unnecessarily by comparing rating systems to what is used in the United States and/or elsewhere on the Earth. And sometimes, after a few days or weeks when I tried cleaning up that trivia on the aforementioned articles, those vandals (either new ones, or the same users hiding under a different IP) return and vandalize the page or sections all over again. I added those hidden notices in order to deter such vandalism, and also because I do not understand how to add a page notice on the top of the edit page (instead of inside the text field that I'm typing in). I do not intend to start an edit war; I am only trying to prevent certain vandalism from occurring, and to clean up irrelevant trivia and other miscellaneous information.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Chris[reply]

Template:CNY

Your blind revert here reverted cleanup to the other editor's preferred version (because he just changed letters instead of reverting) and gave RMB as an alternate option as readout. The argument on the page is whether CNY or RMB should default.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative option there is no consensus for - indeed one user has said they don't support the use of RMB anywhere on wikipedia. Maybe I reverted back to the wrong version - I trusted the other user on that - but at the moment it looks like you're trying to do an end around process. Given the difficulty in checking the usage of templates your edits look like a precursor to slowly changing all the template usages so they do use your preferred version. I'm not seeing that is your intent but given how easy it would be for an unscrupulous edit to act in that way and go unnoticed I think it best to leave the template in it's current form, especially given that, at the moment, there isn't even consensus to use RMB as an option. Dpmuk (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not over an alternate set of parameters. It is over the default. I split the difference so both can be used easily. CN¥ displays as he wants while CN¥ displays how I want. The template is used on like 10 pages anyway.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryulong: I can see how people might think the discussion started over what the default was but regardless of what started the discussion people also expressed opinions there about what should be used in all situations on wikipedia. Although not many expressed a view those that did were of the opinion that it shouldn't be used at all. Although it probably wasn't enough to call it a consensus doing what you did is unnecessarily combative. Also I reverted to the stable version and stand by that and so it should stay in that state until consensus is to change it now that you know your bold change has not been accepted. I suggest you self-revert. As it is you're coming very close to edit warring.

I also do not appreciate this edit summary. I was not aware that you like to keep conversations in one place (I did not see your notice) and per my notice at the top of this page and the edit notice I default to replying on the users edit page. There is no definitive guidelines on how talk pages should be used and so it was not unreasonable to reply on your page. I do not appreciate being shouted at over such a reasonable action. Please be more civil in future. Dpmuk (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts (talk • contribs)

suggestion

Personally, I don't care what you have on your user page (unless it's like WP:POLEMIC, which you wouldn't do, of course). You could replace the template with this hacked version which should both satisfy the critics and communicate what you what to communicate per your comments at ANI. NE Ent 00:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RETIRED

This user no longer works as an administrator or copyright violation investigator.

@NE Ent: I had started considering something like that before you suggested it but hadn't got that far in my thinking. Given some of the comments out there I'm afraid that evening a modified template such as this would be unacceptable to some of the community. Suppose the best I can do is suggest it and see what happens.

However, even if that is acceptable, I think the larger issue of people using the lines on the template as justification for removing the template from other people's user pages also needs sorting. Discuss with them sure, outright removal, no. It seems clear to me from comments at ANI and the Template talk page that there is no consensus that even one edit means a user is no longer retired and so I don't think there is consensus for removal of the the template after one edit especially given the user page guideline. Given that we're now into a grey area I think the template documentation should be changed so it does not justify removing the template in any circumstances.

That said I can see that in my case there is enough confusion that the template as stands probably isn't a good ides - hence the reason I like your suggestion. I don't think there is a consensus that I am not "retired" but I also think it would be unnecessary problematic to keep it as is. Dpmuk (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've often see editors with {{Retired}} editing, although I'd have to have to do some searching to find examples. I don't see what the fuss is about -- in the default Vector skin the link to Special:Contributions/Dpmuk in the left side bar allows any editor to determine how active you are, if it's important to them for some reason. I agree the template doc -- or even the template itself should be adjusted, but it's just not something I have wiki-time to pursue myself right now. In any event, the goal of any editor who is the focus of an WP:ANI discussion should be to get out as soon as possible; you don't need anyone's permission to change your user page, so I'd simply just change it now with whatever custom message you want, and I suspect the ANI thread will wind down very quickly afterwards. NE Ent 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent:Thank you for taking the time to reply - changes made. I wouldn't expect you to take up the template change cause but it's nice to have an uninvolved experienced editor agree that the template may need changing and so I was not wrong to start a discussion about that. With hindsight boldy editing the template may have been a step too far but I wasn't expecting it to be that contentious! Obviously the right place for that discussion is the template talk page and not AN/I so hopefully the thread at AN/I will now die down. Dpmuk (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a firm advocate of bold. It's just important to accept -- as you did -- bold often gets reverted, which is fine as long as once accepts it with grace. NE Ent 02:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "retired" by itself would still be iffy, but the explanation below it clarifies the matter. Good job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: My intention had never been to cause confusion or to game the system and that's why I added the text below the template in the first place (where I said I was pretty much retired and may take sometime to reply). As I've said I never interpreted the default text in the template as "will never edit" so did not feel the need to change it. If I'd realised people thought the way you did I would have made such a change earlier. I still think we have some problems with the template and it's documentation that my case has highlighted and I've made some concrete proposals over on the template documentation talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some comments. I like your idea of a parameter override and softening the rules a bit. It should be an easy change to make. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, it already allows overrides. It should be easy to change to allow a bit more flexible wording. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dpmuk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments on use of certain files not copyrighted in the US

Hello,

There is an ongoing discussion about the use of files on Wikipedia that are not protected by copyright in the US because there is no copyright relations between the US and the country of publication. You commented in a 2012 discussion on the same topic that resulted in no consensus. You are invited to share your views in the ongoing discussion. AHeneen (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dpmuk. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dpmuk. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive bot notice

Hello, this is notice that you have one or more registered bot accounts that will be retired and deactivated. See Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Inactive_bots_-_February_2022. Should you wish to reactivate your bot please reply there within the week. Else, no action is needed. Should you wish to reactivate the bot in the future, please file a request at WP:BRFA. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 10:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]