Soham (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello, Acalamari. I do occasionally revert vandalism, but usually only if I come across it at the articles on my watchlist. I'm not a full-time "vandalism fighter" and thus I think that rollback-rights would not be of much use for me, at this time. Thanks anyway. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JianhuiMobiletalk is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Acalamari! Thanks again for all the help regarding past cases, Though I hope you could again help me on this one as User:Useddenim has shown, in my opinion, an improper conduct during his edit. I voiced out my revert that I did it because he did not fix it properly, only to get a reply via the history box with "then just fix the header!...." in a seemingly demanding voice which should not be as per user guidelines in wiki conduct. I do not disagree with all of his edits but he could at least conveyed it in a polite manner. Please do any proper action regarding this user so that such action may be reprimanded and corrected. Thanks! JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeromesandilanico, I'm always happy to help. As for this situation, I looked at the edit summary in question. However, Useddenim's summary isn't sanctionable; at the absolute worst, it comes across as mildly bossy but it doesn't warrant a block or even a warning. If the edit summary does bother you, you could post to Useddenim's talk page to request that they tone it down a little, but beyond that there's not really anything anyone can do. No admin would ever block/warn for something this mild; in fact, most admins would be more bothered by the reverts that have taken place on the page. Sorry if this wasn't the response you had sought. Acalamari09:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, thanks so much, I really appreciate this! You're very much welcome for any help that I've given you this year; I had a pleasant time doing it for you. Thanks in return for your own understanding and patience during all of those occasions. Best wishes to you for the season, for 2014 and beyond. Best. Acalamari09:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was a wise move in the light of the heat being expressed by several IP editors, or, perhaps, by one on multiple IPs. Please would you look at the article's talk page, especially the current last thread, and consider whether you have semi-protected it for sufficient time? If you consider that you have then that is fine, of course. May I ask you in any case to place this article on your watch list to determine if it is being edited in a constructive manner.
I have no connection to nor knowledge of Martha Nell Smith, nor any interest in editing the article, but I would like to see peace and collegiate editing break out. If you can see a good way to bring peace to the article that would be ideal FiddleFaddle18:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Timtrent! I thought that three days would be a reasonable length, even when considering the previous protection a few days before; I thought a week would be excessive but I am willing to add the article to my watchlist and see what happens, especially when the protection expires. As for the talk page, I have been reading it and have wondered how that can be sorted out, especially when the likes of yourself, SandyGeorgia, et al., have explained why the edits are problematic yet you keep getting yelled at. :/
On a related note, I thought I would get a message here about the the protection, but I'm relieved that it was one in favor of my actions. :) Best. Acalamari20:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very silly content dispute, really. No good ever comes of abusing anyone else here, and posing and posturing have a negative effect as well. Who would have thought that this topic was even contentious? It looks as if it will run and run.
I think some sort of swoop by well respected editors may be required, to sort wheat from chaff, but the IP folk seem to be self identified experts. All I can think of is taking each desired addition and reaching a consensus on it. But it seems hard to get the claque to work in a collegiate manner. My talk page is an example, just up from the bottom where it is amusing them to attack me. They may attack all they wish, at least from my perspective. Every attack dilutes their alleged expertise.
An RfC might still be productive. Even if the IPs ignored it, it would draw more neutral editors in to review the situation, who could then give their opinions and help reach a consensus.
I'll have a think about an RfC. Phrasing it is the challenge. I do like the dog item. (Oops, forgot to sign that). I have now thought, phrased it and set it up. I hope it proves to be useful. FiddleFaddle21:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like the dog article, too. :) (And don't worry about the missing signature...it was okay!)
Good call on the RfC; there's absolutely nothing to lose by starting it; hopefully, they'll be some productive discussion there soon. While I have the page on my watchlist, I think that Bbb23 deserves credit for blocking the proxies. Acalamari21:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks XXSNUGGUMSXX for sharing that; it's a sweet little video and a nice surprise. :) I hope you've been having a pleasant holiday season. Have a very Merry Christmas! :D Acalamari16:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~TheGeneralUser(talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I do not know if this question will seem stupid you but I am patrullador in Wikipedia and I wanted to know one think. I established a quick erased tag in an article published by a new Wikipedian, because this is about a living person, but does not carry references (Mark P. Chamberlain). Supposedly, what are the adminitradores must decide whether to delete the item. For that reason, I wanted to know if it is necessary that I have to indicate the item to an administrator or they would realize of the article in other ways and I just would have to include the label and point? I sorry, I've never put labels quickly deleted and I do not know how this works. Than you. --Isinbill (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Isinbill! No, your question is not stupid, so don't worry about that. Anyway, as you've tagged the article for deletion via WP:PROD (proposed deletion), administrators will find the page in Category:All articles proposed for deletion, Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion and Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion by days left. If no one objects to your prod after ten days, an administrator may delete the page; however, if the tag is removed, the page can either be brought to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or the tag can be re-added (since it's a BLP) if no sources have been provided shortly after the removal of the tag. As for "quick erase/quickly deleted", I assume that you're referring to speedy deletion; prod and speedy deletion aren't the same, and the page doesn't qualify for speedy deletion because it's not an attack page and the subject asserts why it is notable. Being an unreferenced BLP, however, does mean it qualifies for prod, which is what you've tagged it with. Does this satisfy your question? Best. Acalamari11:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you might be aware, I proposed the creation of a Miley Cyrus WikiProject back in August, although there hasn't been much of a response at the nomination since. I see that you're a fairly regular contributor over at her main article, and I thought that you might be interested in joining in the discussion. If you have the opportunity, it would be appreciated if you left some comments to help revive the discussion. Thanks, WikiRedactor (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WikiRedactor, I wasn't aware of your proposal (or I forgot, but I think it's the former) for a Miley Cyris WikiProject but I will be happy to provide my input over there. I'll do it soon. :) A Miley WikiProject is a good idea; I'm surprised that there isn't one already! Acalamari19:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
94.41.219.134's edits do not appear to be vandalism and they are not impersonating anyone. As I've told your other IPs that have posted to my talk page, you should discuss this dispute at the appropriate talk pages, such as Talk:Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album). I'm not going to be blocking anyone because I see no reason to make any blocks at this point; these reports to my talk page are not helpful. For a centralized discussion, consider posting to Talk:Avril Lavigne. Acalamari16:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this page continues to be vandalized, mainly by IP editors. Would you consider upgrading to semi-protection? See also [1]. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jianhui67talk★contribs — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello, Acalamari. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 16:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Yep, I saw. I still stand by what I said about wanting at least ten more uses of the template, preferably twenty, but I will be happy to grant you the userright if you keep up the good work. :) Feel free to continue letting me know how you do. Best. Acalamari23:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly are, keep up the good work! At the risk of sounding rude, it isn't necessary to prod me; I am watching, so don't worry. :) Acalamari18:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, to be fair, I have no idea how Wikidata works, either! The only person I know who I think can help you with that is RexxS, as I'm pretty sure that this is something I've heard him talk about before. Best. Acalamari12:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Vitilsky, they should not be merged. d:Q736272 is for disambiguation term "shop", while d:Q213441 refers to the english term shop (place where items are sold). So, they should not be merged. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc2117:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's just what I would have said had I spotted the ping sooner. Unlike Wikipedia, Wikidata can have lots of pages with the same label ("title"), because they each have an unique identifier (like Q736272 or Q213441), so it's quite normal there to have one page for a concrete noun ('shop' = place where items ares sold) and another for an abstract concept ('Shop' = a disambiguation page on Wikipedia). It wouldn't matter even if the capitalisation were identical. See how many pages labelled 'Newport' you can find on Wikidata! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't answer the fact that the disambiguation page is in 3 languages yet the actual article about "shop (place to buy various items and groceries)" is the one that has the most interlanguage links. Just so you can take into account the POV of someone coming from another Wikipedia, cannot access the article as they are all linked to the article "Retail". To add to the confusion, the disambiguation page "Store" makes the matter worse. It is a mess, precisely for this reason. --Vitilsky (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear admin, i want to say that two non-admin users Soham and Nehapant19 try to considering me a sockpuppet of my own (which is not possibe). I request you to please warn them. If they are not able to warn then please block them from editing. Watch these 1.[[2]] and 2.[[3]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasir Mushtaq (talk • contribs) 10:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Acalamari and New Years greetings. Could I please ask for your help/advice on recent edits to the We Were Soldiers article. There have been a number of edits by several unregistered IP addresses (all of which appear to be from the same source) in the last few days. In spite of the notice on the page they(?) appear to ignore the placing of duplicate information, and in one case - a poorly written - edit. I have offered to help, but this has been ignored. I wonder if this is a case for page protection for a week or so? With best wishes, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, New Year's greetings to you, too. While three different IPs have inserted that content, I don't the article is quite at the point to justify semi-protection; however, just in case the problem continues I have temporarily watchlisted the page. Your notes on the IPs' talk pages have been sufficient. Acalamari17:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Acalamari, Many thanks for your reply and for keeping a watch on the article. I strongly suspect that the three IPs have been written by the same person, as the locations given are in the same area of the UK. Anyway, we'll see. With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that BIH has created several spam and paid editing of following links. I have messaged you for same in the past and i believe that there is no fairness on wikipedia for this user. Why are you allowing him to create spammy pages offcourse for which he is paid thousands of dollars.
Hello Acalamari, I found out that you are one of the English Wikipedia Administratos and I've decided to write to you about one irritant user, it's User:Dag13. Please visit his page and review it, I'm really interesting if it is forbidden or not to behave like him. I don't know maybe I also violated some rules, but maybe. If you found out, tell me about them I'll be pleased, I am not well in English Wikipedia rules, but I think what he does it's excessive and trespass. Thank you. --g. balaxaZeႫ19:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know those rules well, and I asked you if I'm violating any rules on my page let me know. But also I want to do something with Dat13 he is exta propagandist, check his Czech page cs:user:Dag13--g. balaxaZeႫ19:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I can't help you with the Czech wiki, as I'm not an active editor there and I don't understand the language. As for your userpage, the userbox about Vladimir Putin could be divisive if you edit articles to do with Russia; it also poses a BLP concern, even if he is a major world leader and subject to constant criticism. There's also the matter of the userbox about Abkhazia/South Osettia, too; I don't know much about that part of the world but a userbox like that could certainly be divisive if you edit articles to do with those regions. Other than those - and what Malik Shabazz said to you here - I don't have a problem with the rest of your user page. Acalamari21:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be honored to be a reviewer. Thank you for the offer and the complements. I definitely need to read more thoroughly on what it entails, but it looks like something I'd be interested in. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Acalamari - Thank you for your kind words on my talk page. It's good hear from you. Class of 2006 rules! as everyone knows. See you around the 'pedia. -- Jreferee (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Acalamari, This lousy T-shirt has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
There seem to be a couple (or one) brand new users with no track record who are quite intent on putting up negative statements about Shing-Tung Yau. Would you mind looking into it? LJosil (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've semi-protected the article for a week. In the meantime, I would recommend starting a discussion on the talk page, just in case that will help, although I appreciate the difficulty in trying to discuss with unresponsive accounts/IPs. Acalamari09:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there's a different user now trying to change the citizenship info on the page. They don't look plausible to me, but they have no source in any case. LJosil (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to have to tell you this (especially since I thought it had previously been settled), but users Status and Tomica have completely dismissed my "Hummingbird Heartbeat" explanations. It seems like no matter what I say, they refuse to listen or even acknowledge me. It sometimes feels like they make excuses to revert me. When I tried to explain myself on Tomica's talk page, he very rudely dismissed my explanations and went so far as to laugh at them and call my edits "stupid". When I tried to ask him not to be patronizing or rude or dismissive or like that, he continues to disregard my words. His arrogance and lack of civility have me rather concerned. Please help? Feels like he's saying "fuck you and your edits" to my face. I'd advise against pinging him in this conversation as he essentially refuses to accept my input and don't want to risk him making rude and patronizing remarks on your page.
I have left a note on Tomica's talk page to ask them to change their approach and have invited them to join the discussion I started on the article's talk page three months ago. There is nothing wrong with users disagreeing with one another, but it doesn't need to lower to the level where one user starts to become upset and uncomfortable. After all, you and I have had our share of disputes, but I'd like to think that we have resolved them.
I will ask this, though: One of the reasons that has been cited for reverting you is your removal of some sources. Out of curiosity, have you tried searching for better sources to replace them with? If you're challenging a source's reliability, one of the best things you can do is to replace it with a better one. Acalamari17:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that at least some of the changes you've made to the wording could be re-implemented; in a disagreement, one tries to come to a compromise. I'll see how Tomica responds to my note; I'd ideally like the discussion on the talk page to resume and for this dispute to come to an end. If necessary, we can start an RfC on the talk page, much like the one on the talk page for Katy's main article. If two or three people can't come to an agreement, best to bring in others! :) Acalamari18:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RfC sounds like a good idea, though it looks like Tomica has completely ignored your comment. Ironically, he stated he was willing to help another user with civility problems. It's tempting to say Status and/or Tomica have some sort of bias against me given their general attitudes when rejecting my edits on that page and others. As much as I would appreciate someone such as yourself restoring my version (which I have repeatedly explained only to be shot down again and again for little to no reason), I don't want those two dismissively shooting down your input as well. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, me restoring your version would be one of the worst ways to handle the dispute. As I'd like to see this resolved, me throwing a revert into the mix would make the situation worse - not better - and go against everything I told you the other day about discussion! No, if there's nothing on the talk page for a couple of days or so, an RfC is the way to go. Does that sound okay to you? Regardless of the result, an RfC would be far more productive than slow-moving reverts. Best. Acalamari08:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of how bad of an idea that would be, which is why I stated I didn't want you to be shot down and/or belittled as well. RfC sounds like a plan. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have the article on my watchlist, so I'll look out to see what happens. If there's nothing by Monday/Tuesday, I'll start an RfC; I won't give any opinion on the content itself. For what it's worth, thank you for following my tips to you; I really appreciate it when someone listens and improves themselves. :) Acalamari13:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JennKR, if somebody else makes the judgment to move Beyoncé Knowles and assuming they don't move any of the related articles, all you would be doing is cleanup for the sake of consistency. I don't see any conflict of interest. Acalamari15:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Acalamari. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 18:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I am looking for the translation of "awesomely weird" to German, the proposal by Google translate is awesomely weird ;)
Hmm, I was thinking of how I could help you with this one, but I honestly don't know, as I don't speak much German! :( Purely out of curiosity, based on what you've said, I did look at Google translate and it came up with "ehrfürchtig komisch" for "awesomely weird", which it said translates back to English as "awesome funny". Acalamari17:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, to say that the Google translation is off would be...an understatement! Good work on getting Duck Attack! onto the German Wikipedia Main Page. :) Acalamari16:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EvergreenFir! Wikipedia:Non-free content review is a good place to post, as Blurred Linesdid here. As for who to go to, J Milburn is an excellent person to ask about image-related issues...perhaps even the best I can recommend; I have full confidence in his experience and I trust him completely. I think you'll find that in this particular case, the removal of the image is correct, as it appears to be more decorative than educational. Best. Acalamari10:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Acalamari, thank you for your kind words. @EvergreenFir:, I agree completely with Masem on the NFCR page. We should not be using non-free content if we can avoid it, and the article on the episodes can be fully understood without us knowing what the logo looks like. I've added a free image of MacFarlane to the article for now- this seems like an appropriate image to lead the article. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... to be the first to congratulate you on your soon-to-be-official successful RfB! I have a great amount of confidence in you and I'm sure you'll be an excellent help to the community as a 'crat. Gloss • talk07:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3 minutes to go, you'll pass with 0 oppose or neutrals, way to go. Whats after crat? Stewardship right? Good luck for that also. Soham11:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's closed now. ;) As for steward, ArbCom and other positions, I don't have any intention of running for any of them...ever! I'm quite satisfied with my existing tools. :) Acalamari11:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing, I haven't really been interested in any of the other positions. I'm not really active on Meta to justify being a steward and ArbCom would be time-consuming and take away my work in the mainspace (which, after all, is the main reason any of us is here). At least by being a bureaucrat I can help out with a few extra tasks while not losing out on editing articles. :) Thanks for the t-shirt! :D Acalamari14:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This RfB made you the first candidate since 2004 to go completely unopposed with two zero's at the end of the tally :) (fun fact) Gloss • talk17:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that! As far as I'm concerned, the lack of any opposition/neutrals is greater incentive for me to do a good job. ;) Also, with Worm That Turned and I both being successful, I think it's the first time since July 2007 that two RfBs have passed in one month. Acalamari18:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By far, the easiest bureaucrat decision I ever made...
I missed this Acalamari! I'd have come back to support you had I known! You'll just have have this message now, rather than an actual support on your RfB! Well done by the way - Very much deserved and it's been a real pleasure watching you mature and gain in confidence over the years. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter23:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan, thank you so much! It's completely okay that you missed the RfB; given that you've known me since my account was only a few months old, it means a lot that you came here to post this. :) As I've said a few times now, I'm honestly shocked by the support and how no one opposed, but as far as I'm concerned, that's just strong incentive for me to do a good job and to not let anybody down. I look forward to our future interactions, both on and off-wiki! :D Acalamari23:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So your RfB was closed by Xeno as successful. I'm here to personally congratulate you for winning the community's unanimous support and if you remember, I was one of those who voted for you. So thank you for dedicating your time to Wikipedia and offering to serve the community more extensively. Once more, congratulations and you deserve a pat on your shoulder! With regards, Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I'd rather not spam the talk pages of 108 people with thank you messages (although there are a few people I'd like to thank individually), I'll give my thanks here. Thank you to everyone who supported my request for bureaucratship; my candidacy was far more successful than I had expected it to be and I will ensure that I don't let everyone down. While the request was unanimous, I would like to acknowledge Ben MacDui's concern in his support; however, everyone can rest assured that my demeanor and approach to other people and the project will remain the same. :) Still, as I said over there, my talk page is always open, so if you think I'm doing anything wrong, please do let me know! Thanks again, everyone, it's all appreciated. Acalamari11:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! I didn't get to !vote (since I apparently still don't have RfA/RfB watchlisted after 8 years on the project), but of course I would have supported you. I'm very pleased to see you received such strong and unanimous support. Good luck in the new role! MastCellTalk19:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Darn it, missed another party. I was out drinking with MastCell, if you must know, at an NRA function. Well done, Acalamari, and good luck in the new job. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on an excellent spurt through a Spiesrutenlauf and successfully increasing the number of active admins. If HJ Mitchell wants to know why there was a sudden boost to my bank account on the first day, I swear it was a coincidence. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I woke up this morning and went to close your RfB, but found it already done. Welcome to the team and congrats. You're an exceptional and long-serving Wikipedian, who will make a wonderful 'crat. Pakaran13:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When was the last time an RfB closed unanimously? That's pretty rare, because the position requires a very high degree of trust from the community — you definitely have that. Just try not to rename Jimbo, okay? ;-)
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy Yuletides! 
.JPG)
Soham 11:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
Northamerica1000(talk) 12:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at WikiPuppies's talk page. WikiPuppies bark dig 20:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
