User talk:Maxim

• Click here to leave me a message.
• Old messages have been archived.

The Barnstar of Diligence

Hi Maxim! I wanted to thank you personally for your contributions to the Arbitration Committee. I've observed that you played a key role during your term in responding to the steady stream of block and ban appeals that come in—making sure they are tracked and answered in an organized fashion. I know that arb work isn't always the most rewarding experience, in part because much of the work you do is behind-the-scenes and invisible to the broader community. For your diligent work in this thankless role, please accept this barnstar. Best wishes for the new year! Mz7 (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Maxim: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RfA for MB has gone to a bureaucrat chat. Please join in the discussion. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Joseph has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guessing you'll see the email before this talk page message but just in case.... Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy bureaucratship anniversary! Hi Maxim! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for bureaucratship. Enjoy this special day! interstatefive  00:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy bureaucratship anniversary! Hi Maxim! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for bureaucratship. Enjoy this special day! Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 15:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 15:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok to discuss this, but make it a public discussion, where I can defend myself. I was rather friendly in the discussion and Tony Ballioni strongly justified my block, to answer to that is only fair. Accusing me of Ethno-nationalist debates for reverting a disruptive and eventually blocked editor in a joint operation with another editor and justifying their oppose to the unblock based on that, is at least questionable. I edit for the calmness of wikipedia, and for this I get blocked...is this justice? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might not realize this @Paradise Chronicle but Maxim is no longer an arbitrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but they seemed to suggest it. Anyhow, most of who commented at that discussion are just wielding the block weapon and have no diffs for an eventual disruption nor do they even consider my arguments for a solution. I was correct with the ArbCom, the ArbCom told me all is good. Why former members of the ArbCom are now thinking of a block is a bit of a mystery to me.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how "having served", being in the past tense, could suggest that I am still an arbitrator. Paradise Chronicle, I don't think you realize how much luck you've had in your dealings with ArbCom. It's not that you simply won the lottery, but it's that you've won the lottery at least twice, given the unblock and the follow-up emails, and perhaps even thrice if we consider that you got out of this case with only a warning (Tony's recent comments suggest to me that a more thorough examination of your behaviour may have been appropriate at the time, but not that much was presented in the evidence phase). I urge you to quit while you're ahead, provided that's still possible. Maxim (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery/Bureaucrat chat and join the discussion when you have an opportunity. Maxim (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a log of every request for adminship that was closed via bureaucrat chat? Thank you. CityOfSilver 18:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CityOfSilver, see WP:CRATCHAT, which I believe is exhaustive since the beginning of time. Maxim (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's hilarious is that I came here to pester you only after I tried WP:BUREAUCRATCHAT and struck out. Thanks again! CityOfSilver 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Maxim,Yunshui here unfortunately I lost access to my old account as I've forgotten my password and don't use that email anymore. I'm back and am ready to get back to editing again so please let me know if there's a way to get my account back. Yunsui (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of assigning the appropriate editing privileges. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you should have given mass message sender first so "Yunshui" could have asked every bureaucrat directly that much more easily... :-) Maxim (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm cleaning up various syntax errors across Wikipedia that are collectively called WP:LINT, and the particular error I'm focused on, the tidy font error, I have down to 1900 errors on less than 400 pages. 38 pages you full protected, and per WP:RPPD I was wondering if you had any objection to lowing their protection to allow me to address these issues. The pages of interest are User talk:Sceptre archives 1, 3 through 16, 18 through 29, 31, 32, 35, 37 through 41, 43, 46, and 48. Do you have any objection to these pages being lowered?

If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. I have Extended Confirmed access, so that or lower is fine, and assuming this is a temporary lowering, I'd let you know when I was finished with the set.

Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, what do you think of setting all of those archive pages to ECP protection permanently? It's probably what we would have done 15 years ago had we had that option... Maxim (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine by me. Sceptre (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zinnober9, I've changed the affected archive pages to permanent extended confirmed protection instead. Maxim (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, I'll get on those shortly. I see that Archives 5 through 9 seem to have been skipped. Any issue with those?

I'm also interested in Archive 57 being lowered for the Tidy Fonts. I had not included it in this requested set initially since it was protected by PeterSymonds (on Sceptre's request), but since Sceptre has given the okay, I'd assume you could lower that one as well? Zinnober9 (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was that Special:PrefixIndex spits out pages in alphabetical and not numerical order (so archive 1, 10, 11, ... , 2, 20, 21, and so on) and I cut off at 48, skipping 5–9. I think everything is sorted out now. Maxim (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you! Zinnober9 (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...that you're running for ArbCom again. You have my support! :D Acalamari 21:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, Acalamari. It is very heartening to read that some are excited to see me run again. :-) Maxim (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November songs

story · music

Thank you for standing to become arbitrator again! My story today is Canticle I: My beloved is mine and I am his, - the composer, born OTD 110 years ago, didn't want it shorter (but the publisher), - more here. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that I made {{Benjamin Britten}}, 10 years ago on the occasion of his centenary? And have a tradition of presenting one of his works when his birthday returns, such as this latest? - Thank you for a reply to my cand question. I may discuss it after tomorrow's concert when we will sing the Mozart and listen to Pärt's urgent call for peace played by the strings, - I'm not in the mood before ;) - I mentioned Pärt for a reason, could have been Beethoven as well, in other words: I believe it's time for a fresh look, as we were told 10 years ago. - "Infobox chaos": no idea when that happened where. I met the conflict in 2012, for Samuel Barber, and then we discussed operas such as Siegfried, and we three discussing cordially (I think) were admonished by arbitration a few weeks later - no idea why, still ;) (the discussion is still on the talk, 10 years later) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The concert was good, User Talk:Gerda Arendt#Mozart Requiem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your answer: the status quo is that editors are compared to armies, and I think that could be improved ;) - Many new editors have no idea of any conflict - we had years without disputes, remember? - and may be surprised that what they added thinking they improved Wikipedia is reverted citing some "PR/FAC" abbreviation they may not understand, instead of an argument. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today: in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying to my question; I didn't want to reply there as it doesn't seem overly relevant, but in regards to:

On the other hand, if the push-back happened to be related to a Committee decision, then there would be a responsibility to carefully review the original decision, at least internally. Perhaps it was communicated poorly, or perhaps it is indeed just a poor decision. Committees of the past have certainly made questionable calls, but I don't recall them provoking mass wheel and edit warring, and I like to think that it comes as much as anything from the fact that around this time each year, we as a community can chuck out half the committee, and the rest of it the year after.

My belief is that if there comes a point that ARBCOM makes such a questionable call (one example that comes to mind was the proposed source language restriction) that the community feels it cannot stand, the community will just abuse the ratification and amendment process to overturn it - I don't think it would come to any sort of edit or wheel warring because there is a clear path to correcting it through established processes. BilledMammal (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very fair point. The hypothetical of a Fram-style situation with regards to an ArbCom decision made me think back to the older days of the Committee where we had incidents between ArbCom and the community that we can call "near misses", but there wasn't a clean way of amending ARBPOL—that process was only put in place in June 2011. If one goes even further down this kind of rabbit hole, ex-arbitrators were only removed from arbcom-l in January 2009 (in part, I believe, due to too much kibbitzing; this is how functionaries-en was created), and, to the best of my knowledge, Jimbo was still "interpreting" election results as late as December 2008 (Special:Diff/259248025). Maxim (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December songs

story · music

Today's story is about Maria Callas, on her centenary. - Aaron Copland died OTD, and Jerome Kohl (mentioned in November) said something wise on Copland's talk, - yes, regarding a soft(er) stance towards infoboxes. - I can't follow your point that no compromise can be had because it's infobox or no infobox. The compromise offered by Brian Boulton in 2013 is a minimal box (which he called identibox), - his version is in Percy Grainger, my version in Beethoven (not by me but the community), and I wonder why that has not won more traction. Instead, opposers now came up with the idea that a link to a list of a composer's works is somehow a breach of MoS guidelines (Rossini), which sounds absurd to me. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check out the history of the infobox of Callas? Compare Jessye Norman, Kathleen Ferrier and Jenny Lind. Did you check out the history of Copland? Compare Max Reger, Max Beckschäfer, Colin Mawby (from today's story), and Benjamin Britten (who died OTD). What's the difference? If what you see changes your answer to my question, feel free to change, and ping me. I would like to see a way to avoid in the future hundreds of editors commenting on Mozart RfCs, just to kind of restore the infobox he had in 2006. Happy new era ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I managed to get the pics to snow (on 28 Nov), and heard a lovely concert, after listening to a miracle of meditative dreaming on 6 December (or just click on music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... and today, to Paris (29 Nov) with a visit to the Palais Garnier, - to match the story of Medea Amiranashvili, - don't miss listening to her expressive voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is about Michael Robinson, - it's an honour to have known him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to your election! - I uploaded more pics, with Christmas trees and related artworks, and I have two women on the Main page (for a sad reason). Our Christmas singing (of my user's infobox music "singen, singen") was pictured! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maxim, you have been elected to the arbitration committee! The results of the election are available here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Results. You will likely be contacted by the existing committee for onboarding. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats/condolences. I hope you are once again a voice of reason on the committee. They need it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Maxim! And good luck with all of those email messages! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the congratulations (or condolences). I'm curious to see how this year goes. We'll have an interesting mix of rookies and veterans; a strong majority of the committee is either going into a first year or a fourth year of service. Maxim (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Maxim, I'm glad you're back on ArbCom! :D Acalamari 12:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 1 January 2024:

• Aoidh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cabayi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Firefly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maxim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sdrqaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ToBeFree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Z1720 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Upon meeting the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public personal data and signing the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement, all incoming arbitrators will be subscribed to all Committee-managed email lists, assigned the CheckUser and Oversight permissions for use in office, and given access to the CheckUser and Oversight queues on the VRTS system.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2023:

• Enterprisey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Izno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SilkTork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wugapodes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, to remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators, who have not elected to retain them, after 31 December 2023:

  CheckUser: Enterprisey, Izno, SilkTork

  Oversight: Enterprisey, Izno, SilkTork

• Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
• All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list, with the exception of Enterprisey, who has elected to be unsubscribed.
• All outgoing arbitrators will be unsubscribed from the clerks-l mailing list, with the exception of Izno, who has elected to remain subscribed.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2024 Arbitration Committee

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Afternoon,

I wish to enquire under what arbitration case the sockpuppet user WacoBell was unblocked? I can't find the arbitration case you refer to in their unblocking, and on the talk page their most recent edit was removing the fact their appeal was declined in December (Decline dif, removal dif) which hardly seems the behaviour of someone deserving of such treatment. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rambling Rambler, the Arbitration Committee hears block appeals in certain cases; the majority of these are appeals of CheckUser blocks. The on-wiki documentation for this ArbCom function is not the greatest, but you can see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Appeals for more information. Users who get unblocked are entitled to archive their talk pages as they wish. While a user is blocked, declined appeals should not be removed, but they're visible in the history, and doing so is not treated as an automatic disqualifier. I also want to note that just because ArbCom has accepted appeal, it does not preclude reinstating a block if there is disruption. I notice you have reverted and warned WacoBell since the unblock, so if you believe there is chronic disruptive editing, I would encourage you to file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (aka ANI) that describes, with diffs, the issues at hand with WacoBell's edits. Keep in mind that the ANI is not for content disputes, but if there are issues with sourcing, misrepresentation of sources, and similar, then that's a good place to go to. Maxim (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply @Maxim,

I was planning on filing an ANI but was preferring to hear a response here first. I think the fact they've already demonstrated the behaviour that got them blocked on their first account and tried to avoid the block on WacoBell via IP editing shows their behaviour is chronic and not likely to change.

Regards, Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral evidence has led me to believe Heyandwhoa's claim here that he is not a sockpuppet of Kingshowman as we have said in his block message. I mostly edit Wiktionary now and came across him there. He is not blocked there, although he had had some short-term blocks on the IG account, and I think he is mostly interested in Wiktionary and not Wikipedia, but even so, he is upset and may have at first believed that the administrators of Wiktionary were responsible for his indefinite block on Wikipedia. There is nothing we can do for him there, but I said I would pass the message along because it seems to me that Heyandwhoa could hardly have less in common in with Kingshowman. Unless we know that Kingshowman is fond of cleverly adopting wildly different personalities, I hope you will consider lifting the block on the Heyandwhoa account, or at least restoring his talkpage access here so he can make his case in his own words. Best regards, —Soap— 20:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soap, thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I agree it is not Kingshowman; that much can be seen from the technical evidence. The two accounts are  confirmed to each other. Having spent some time reviewing my previous work, I am unsure why I made the association to Kingshowman; I cannot figure out how I made that connection at the time... Maxim (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Maxim! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...did this happen? Are you able to say anything about it? I am interested in the nature of the evidence that resulted in CheckUser use, especially evidence of email canvassing and whether that has been provided to ArbCom. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice a series of accounts that I have recently blocked for the same reason. There are still emails being forwarded to ArbCom in the wake of the motions from January. As within any socking investigation, the checkuser tool can help to uncover more accounts, based on the technical evidence it provides. I understand I'm being a bit coy here, which is in consideration of the checkuser policy, but I hope I've suitably answered your query. Maxim (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed, and you are doing great work. It's encouraging to hear that editors are doing the right thing and forwarding emails. Thanks, I understand the coyness. For the record, since they are quite an experienced editor and often put in a lot of effort to become extendedconfirmed, I sometimes wonder whether not blocking their non-EC accounts until their 500th edit might be both beneficial to Wikipedia and funnier. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So a colleague of mine sent me a link to an interesting YouTube video that graphs and groups all the articles on English Wikipedia. It looked like a hypertrophied graph that might have started out looking like the one we made for the Orangemoody sockpuppetry investigation. The person who wrote the code grouped articles into "communities" that had similar trajectories. The one that cracked me up is the "Canada and Ice Hockey" community, which at first I thought was perhaps an exaggeration of how interlinked those are. Until I thought back to our FA collaboration on Jacques Plante - a Canadian ice hockey player....

Hope you're doing well! Risker (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was about the old hockey notability guideline where playing one game in the NHL meant that a biography was suitable for inclusion. Continuing from that observations, what if a significant percentage of biographies about Canadians are about hockey players (or: a majority of notable Canadians are hockey players)?

Things are going okay... how's MCDC these days? Maxim (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maxim. Could I ask you do run a quick check on several accounts? The oldest one was already blocked as a sockpuppet of Krajoyn. All three accounts added the same image of Riley Reid to Multiracial people as their first edit(s), all using the same text: QleverSnippums, MopaneWorms, and Hardeans (blocked December 2020). Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel Quinlan, I took a look at the accounts in question; the result is at best  Inconclusive. Part of the issue is that the last socks from that SPI are from late 2020; it's tough to either confirm or rule out sockpuppetry with just CU data. My suggestion would be that if you see accounts that behave like a known sockmaster, that is likely to be a form of disruptive editing on its own, and thus a block should be considered. Maxim (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. The disruption fell a bit short of the level where I'd consider a block, but I did leave a warning. I suspect sockpuppetry, but there wasn't enough behavioral data so I was hoping a CU would be fruitful. Sometimes that's just how it goes. Thanks again. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re User talk:Renamed user 1oj3saabam/Archive 1 - since when did we start deleting user talk pages? DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an archive page, not created by page moves, but by a bot copying and pasting. All the meaningful history is preserved in the main talk page. Maxim (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping to hire a consultant to help me correct various errors in your wikipedia. Thank you for all your hard work on wikipedia. I am hoping to hire someone as a consultant and perhaps author to make some corrections that users have posted on wikipedia. Please let me know if you are interested. Dr. R Scott Rosenblum DrRScott (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrRScott, I'm going to reply here rather than over email, since this is useful information for all and sundry anyway. Wikipedia is edited by volunteers, and paid editing (while allowed), is the exception rather than the norm (and many frown upon the practice). You do not have to hire anyone to make corrections, all you have to do is ask someone (or make the change yourself). The easiest way (especially if you have a conflict of interest) is to go to the article's talk page and start a discussion about what needs changing. If you're unsure about anything, the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk are available, as well as the Volunteer Response Team via info-enwikimedia.org. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the National Hockey League (1992–2017) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work as an arbitrator, which from what other arbitrators have said included numerous behind-the-scenes tasks not visible to the general community. It has been greatly appreciated! isaacl (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim, I want to give a belated thank you for the work you've done on the Committee. You were an MVP this year when it came to keeping people on top of things-- although you always have been, of course! Getting to work with you, I think it matured my judgement and leadership more-- you helped give me the confidence to step up as a leader earlier this year. I appreciate the nuance you brang to your votes, and even if I didn't agree with you, I could see why you thought that way. You were a well-oiled gear in the mechanism of Arbcom, and are sorely missed-- I hope to work alongside you again, on or off the Committee. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:17, 4 November 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) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

MediaWiki:Delete, 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/MediaWiki:Delete and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of MediaWiki:Delete 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. Awesome Aasim 00:02, 8 November 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) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]