User talk:Czar/2021

Archives

This page is a selective, manual archive of my talk page. I saved non-notifications that someone may want to access in the future. To find something I haven't archived, try an external search.

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Czar: 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) 17:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Happy New Year!

Czar,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Le Panini ^[🥪] 23:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Czar,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Captain Galaxy 00:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE: History of communism and miscellaneous

Regarding this, it was really helpful, thank you so much. I just do not think I can do it myself, especially on such a controversial article and subject and I would need some draft, guidelines, suggested sources and help from users such as you and The Four Deuces, who are one of the best users on reading our policies and guidelines, and actually following the literature, which often times is not the case. But I consider this a challenge and a big one at improving myself. "I intended to write more articles over my break (except on topics I've already researched) but I've been doing more replying lately ;)." I would love to help and hear more about this. :)

Might be worth asking TFD if they's interested in collaborating, hm? Considering the overlap in topical interest czar 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal and ideas for Wikipedia

As for the last part about Wikipedia, that makes sense and I agree. I wish, however, there were different versions of the same articles and articles that have not got neither Good article nor Featured article status should be considered as draft and be "the official version" only once they obtain the Good article status. Ideally, the Good article and Featured article status should be a summary of the topic and not be overtly detailed but I would not mind if there was a tag alongside Read that read "(See) other versions" or something. There could be different types of version such as the aforementioned more detailed version, an academic-style version, a first-person version, a throw-any-reliable-sources-about-the-topic-without-following-literature version, a translated-other-wiki version, etc. I think it would be fun or interesting to write, say, Socialism article from the perspective of socialists or from liberals, and so on, civilisation from an indigenous POV, or an article of war from a single POV, another from the other POV, and so on.

Hell, there could be a version of any article from any Wikipedian, or a version of any article from any Wikipedian where original research and synthesis are lifted while only verifiability is necessary. In a way, we already do that through drafts and sandbox but I wish there was a way where they could be stored together or something, or the aforementioned "See other versions" bottom. As long as it is clear the difference (i.e. which policies and guidelines still applies, which ones do not, etc.; from what POV is written; and that it is clearly indented to reflect that POV rather than "truth" or our policies and guidelines, which must be respected to gain the Good article and Featured article status, as only the latter would be the official and "first page" version). While these latter ideas are more "fun" or "interesting" than "useful", so one counter-argument could be that it is "counter-productive", I think the idea of making any non-Good article status article a constantly work-in-progress draft, or even dividing a "summary" and "more detailed" version of the same article, would be helpful and useful in eventually helping achieve these two versions, making easier to gain the Good article and/or Featured article status. In short, there would be the "official" Wiki-encyclopedia where the goal would be to create as many Good and Featured articles; and then there would be the "free" Wiki-encyclopedia where the goal would be to create as much free knowledge and perspectives as possible, with the main policy and guideline being verifiability and attribution.

One issue could be the servers, as that could be "too much", but I like to think big and be optimistic someday it will really be possible to have all knowledge and perspectives, properly attributed and verified here. Are these just crazy and nonsensical ideas? Good but too much, too ambitious, too hard? More like "Eh"?

Can always dream I suppose :) but that will never be Wikipedia, not by technical restriction but because that's not what we're here to do. NPOV is a core principle of WP—just as central as verifiability/attribution—so POV splits would be a totally different project. Others have tried some of those ideas. Citizendium is moribund but tried the "only official/approved" content route. The POV-laden RationalWiki and Conservapedia have their own storied histories and reflect the fuzziness of moderation and quality control when NPOV is dropped as a core community principle. GA/FA has little to do with our policies since all articles need to meet policy. GA is a minimum threshold for meeting basic standards and FA is for standout writing and research. It means little outside of the small bubble of Wikipedia editors. Knowing some of your interests, I get why you'd be into the idea, but it's basically an entirely different version of this project for an entirely different community and readership. I would just firmly distinguish your interest in that from your Wikipedia writing. Editing here should be less about philosophical debate and much more of the dry mechanics of "what did the source say/well, what does another source say?" This is why I (and I think most editors) avoid big, controversial topics. The effort/reward ratio isn't there for the difficulty of writing finely on controversial topics. czar 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Regarding pings, my bad about it. It happened a few times that users did not respond and I thought it was good manner to ping but you are right. I also understand if "it's not a discussion I'm looking to follow." However, could you please write a neutral RfC about the scope and your own suggestion you proposed? That would be a way forward.

I also wanted to add I think this comment of yours ("ML is a floating signifier. To this bleary-eyed, third-opinion reader, there is no single reducible definition that applies to all of the ways it's invoked. Our article appears to jumble these different meanings into an invented, contiguous whole.") is a perfect summary of the issues regarding the main topic and scope at Mass killings under communist regimes and its talk page, i.e. I am referring to scholars stating that "a connection between the events in Pol Pot's Cambodia and under the Stalin era are far from evident and that Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris is insufficient for connecting radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism under the same category" and "[w]hether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss." Davide King (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure—I'll post some draft RfC language re: scope

I honestly don't think that the talk page participants on those pages are going to be convinced by any additional rationales. I think the best option is to take a temperature read, use the RfC feature to bring in outside opinions (do not overwhelm them with text, and see how the cards fall. If there is no consensus or no clear path forward, I suggest walking away from it for a while. Even if it's wrong, it'll go on without you, which is a good thing. My recommendation is that you'll be happiest as a Wikipedian finding topics towards which you can contribute productively, building out sections and articles that have not been documented before. It's not worth spending your time deadlocked in contentious discussions that only make you frustrated and miserable when you could be offering something of greater value to the world on other articles. czar 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Jan 15: ONLINE Wikipedia Day NYC

January 15, 6pm: Wikimedia NYC celebrates 20 years of Wikipedia

Wikipedia Day is always a big day for Wikimedia NYC. While we cannot meet in person, we still have something special planned. We will begin the event with the debut of a new video celebrating our community. This will be followed by a panel discussion with some of the people you'll see in the video talking about Wikipedia's 20th anniversary, Wikimedia New York City, and the amazing work they do on Wikimedia projects.

The event will be broadcast live via YouTube. Feel free to ask questions for the panel through the chat!

We will also have some NYC wiki trivia you can participate in, with confectionery prizes.

Friday January 15 ONLINE Wikipedia Day NYC.

6:00pm - 7:00 pm online via Wikimedia NYC on YouTube

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kronstadt rebellion

The article Kronstadt rebellion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kronstadt rebellion for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congats Czar! I am so happy about it! I dropped by to tell you hi after so long time, and I was thrilled to see that your GAN was successful- and a very interesting article indeed. Cinadon36 15:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Moynihan Train Hall

On 23 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Moynihan Train Hall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that U.S. senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan proposed an expansion of New York Penn Station as a homage to the original station, where he had once shined shoes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moynihan Train Hall. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Moynihan Train Hall), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Service move

I was just going to move Robert Service back to Robert Service (disambiguation) but I thought I'd talk about it here first. I believe "Robert Service" is the primary topic for Robert W Service. I'm not sure why you say otherwise. I have books of his poetry that only say Robert Service... no "W" at all. I believe "Robert Service" should redirect to the poet, and if you still insist otherwise there should be an RfC on the move. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Robert Service

Unabomber manifesto

Just wanted to thank you for writing Unabomber manifesto - quite an interesting topic, isn't it? I was surprised to see it was created relatively recently - always cool to see the encyclopedia expanding. Have a great day! Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno Nightcrawler article

Hi, I've recently been working on creating a page on the topic of the Fresno Nightcrawler, which you can find at the top of my Sandbox. I noticed that a similar page was deleted in 2019 for failing WP:NFRINGE and having "dodgy citing", with examples of this included. I feel that there may now be sufficient coverage of the topic by reliable sources (including The Fresno Bee) to warrant an article, and was wondering what steps I would take to make this a reality. Thanks, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresno nightcrawler

Hi @JJonahJackalope, Fresno nightcrawler had more sources when it was deleted—it's more about the quality of the sources than the count. Based on the sources in Special:PermanentLink/1006684397#History_2, I'd wager that the sourcing is still insufficient, though you are welcome to reach out to participants in the last discussion. Grunge.com [1] and Ranker both look like content farms. We'd be looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) If you were to recreate the article, it would likely go back to AfD based on the current sourcing. The alternative is to continue to incubate it in your sandbox or draftspace until better sourcing emerges. czar 22:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, I think at the current time I'm going to keep it in sandbox and wait until I can find better sources for it before publishing. Thanks, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Service Coordination

I'm not sure it should have been closed yet, besides the nominator mine is the only !vote. IMHO relisting would have been better. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67, are you requesting that it be relisted? Otherwise the arguments were sound and the relist procedure is to treat it as an expired PROD before relisting. czar 01:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Video games Newsletter survey

Hello czar! I'm conducting a feature for the video games newsletter similar to that of a survey. I'm going to ask users their opinions on a specific matter and highlight unique and common answers to determine consensus on a subject. Your input would be very valuable, alongside others, to help answer this question.

The question is: How do you determine what makes a video game character notable enough for their own page? Do you follow pre-existing guidelines or have your own opinions on the matter?

P anini ^🥪 22:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!, sorry I missed this—are you still looking for responses? If so, I can put something together. czar 18:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, As the very lazy person I am, I'm waiting until the last minute to put the survey together. So yes, I would appreciate your response! P anini ^🥪 19:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, I'm about to put something together, so if you would like to respond now is the last chance. P anini ^🥪 10:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Premise (company) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Premise (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premise (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:De minimis

Template:De minimis has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Aasim (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel request

Hello, sorry to bother you. Is it possible to revdel this edit? --Ashley yoursmile! 06:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done czar 06:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Empiricism?

I'm puzzling over this passage in the article on Chomsky's book Reflections on Language: "blank slate upon which psychological and social forces act (empiricism)" -- Why the word "empiricism"? It seems misplaced at best. Regards, Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Reflections on Language

Wikiproject Video games Newsletter survey – May 2021

I'm conducting another survey for the Wikiproject Video games Newsletter. If you could leave your thoughts on the matter it would be greatly appreciated. Every response will be compiled into a MOS-Esque answer that balances the thoughts of our top contributors. You're one of them! The question is as follows:

What would you consider the requirements of making a video game series article? What about franchise articles?

If you would like to respond, please ping me here and write your reply. I'll handle the rest. Thanks in advance, Panini!^🥪 14:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!, in my opinion, summary style is the most forgotten organizing principle of Wikipedia. Most "series" or franchise articles are really just a list of items in the series, which is a matter of list notability criteria. For an article, there are obviously sources for each item in the series, so what justifies a separate article? Everyone else is going to say the GNG, that there are significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) that discuss the series as a whole or being more than a sum of its parts. My stance is that all of that stuff fits within the Legacy section of the first item in the series, if the rest of the series was borne of the original entry. Then we're back to summary style: That content only warrants a summary style split into its own article when there is an overabundance of qualified coverage that would threaten the proportion of the main article's coverage, i.e., wouldn't want the Legacy section to dwarf the Development section if it's not the most important intrinsic aspect of the article topic. The "three entries in a series" rule is completely arbitrary and not backed by formal consensus, whereas summary style and due weight are foundational to WP.

By the way, I imagine it'd be easier to aggregate these survey responses on a single page rather than copying across talk pages. czar 19:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Palantir" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Palantir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Palantir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:ROSE" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:ROSE. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 25#Wikipedia:ROSE until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 21:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Is italicized

Template:Is italicized has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WT:FFD § Delsort tags revisted

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FFD § Delsort tags revisted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Audubon moves

I'm not the smartest when it comes to dab pages and the like, I'll admit that. But was there some kind of requested move or other consensus-reaching discussion that I missed? Sro23 (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sro23, nope, just bold. In my topical searches, the National Audubon Society was far and away the primary topic for "Audubon". If it's contested, I can revert for a formal discussion. czar 01:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Arch Enemy (2nd nomination)

The discussion seems to have been erroneously closed to redirect to the nominated page. Hog Farm _Talk 05:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, fixed—thanks! czar 05:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semen Hitler moved

Hello, Czar,

I don't think you saw my last comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semen Hitler but an editor moved the page to Semyon Hitler so what you deleted was a redirect, not the article itself which you can now find at Semyon Hitler, complete with the AFD tag. I didn't think pages were supposed to be moved during deletion discussions so I questioned whether to move it back. But you closed the discussion soon after I commented. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your comment and usually the XFD closer is better about deleting the true article target but there have been some bugs lately, so appreciate the heads up! It's preferable to move articles before/after the AFD but no prohibition on moving them during the discussion. czar 06:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link about moving pages during a deletion discussion. It seems disruptive to me but then, but, you're right, the policy says it's not prohibited. Thanks for your work at AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The future of The Wikiproject Video Games Newsletters

Hey Czar! I would've emailed you about this, but since I'm on the Wikipedia app the "email this user" button doesn't work. I'll just keep stuff anonymous and say it here instead.

I haven't been getting responses from Thibbs this past week about questions I have about the Video Games Newsletter but I have gotten an email from him yesterday. He filled me in on what's happening in his life at the moment (he mentioned you are aware of what) and said he will be out for an indefinite amount of time. Due to the lack of participation in the Newsletter from GamerPro64 and the retirement from IAS that leaves just me on the Newsletter; I'm new to it, and have gotten Thibbs to help all this time, and with him gone, I have no idea what I'm doing! Hehe...

I'm gonna break this up into two pieces because I dont want to risk clicking the back arrow and losing this whole Ted Talk. More info in a second. Panini!^🥪 02:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I haven't seen you around at all but there's a reason why I'm telling you all of this. Here's an excerpt from his email to me:

"He (Czar) has expressed the view that the WP:VG Newsletter should be merged into the The Signpost as a special section. I know GP64 has worked with The Signpost too so he may be helpful if that seems to be the best course going forward."

And due to these events, I think this is the best course going forward. He explained how he has gone out before and the Newsletter next to collapsed because of it, and it left GamerPro doing it all by themself about 3 years ago. I think this will be a repeat of those events. And, since GP64 hasn't been active in the field I doubt they have any interest in having to do it by force.

I would really appreciate your help in this, because if it gets to the point where arrangements start getting made I will definetely need some help with it. I've only been here a year, after all. I still dont know what a sysop is!

Should I make a post about this on WTVG in hope to get more participants? In my view, I dont think so; I made a post on the unofficial Wikimedia Discord server to yield only one response, who agreed with the decision to bring it up to The Signpost. Should I pull the plug on the Newsletter for good this time and request the merge? Please please please help me out here. Panini!^🥪 03:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya @Panini!, I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/Archive 3#Segment within Signpost was the historical thread. The gist was to drop the quarterly stats components and focus on one single feature article every few months for the Signpost readership and potentially wider audience. I.e., if interviewing a WPVG member, make it relevant to all WP editors by asking about their craft of editing and major/common issues facing WPVG editors; if writing about the pitfalls of setting the GNG bar for fictional characters, extend it slightly beyond the bounds of WPVG and write for a Signpost audience.

On resuscitating the newsletter, I'm of two minds: (1) It's okay to let things die. An effort fizzling out is just a capacity issue finding its equilibrium with interest. I doubt the WPVG actual readership is very large. In general, most WikiProjects newsletters (if not WikiProjects themselves) are moribund. I'd argue that WikiProjects should all be converted to topical noticeboards but that's another discussion. (2) If you enjoy doing that sort of stat aggregation, go for it! It's not too much work to compile and send a mass talk page notice. It would be fine to ping the WPVG talk/noticeboard page for collaborative interest or even as fair warning that the newsletter's about to die off without explicit help—you might get a few bites, though doubtful based on prior interest. It wouldn't need to be merged anywhere right away—it's fine to let the page sit fallow for a while (there is no deadline).

But I would ask whether, at the end of the day, you'd rather spend several hours on aggregating the newsletter vs. making a serious dent in an encyclopedia article. After all, we're here for the latter. czar 06:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I tried to leave a note about it on WTVG but Wikipedia mobile refuses to publish it for some reason... Panini!^🥪 03:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD needs looking at

Would you be willing to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Largo, California and either relist or close it? It seems to have got lost down a black hole. Thanks --Pontificalibus 20:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A black hole indeed! Closing it now. czar 21:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Wick article

Hi Czar--could you move Draft:John Wick: Chapter 4 to John Wick: Chapter 4? Cheers! NathanielTheBold (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Looks like it was handled in the last hour. czar 01:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Growing Up Absurd

The article Growing Up Absurd you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Growing Up Absurd for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Klefki

Thoughts on this? Even though expanded, your rationale still seems to hold true. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's at AfD now but yes, I don't see much improvement. czar 09:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Kafka's Prayer

The article Kafka's Prayer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kafka's Prayer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Domingos Passos

Hi Czar! I already finished my article on Domingos Passos. It's a translation from the Portuguese Wikipedia article that I wrote, with some little improvements. It is considered a good article there. I'll be glad if you can review it. Feel free to fix any mistakes and improve the article's text if it is necessary. Greetings! El Descamisado (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a copyedit and left some notes on the talk page. Nice work! czar 22:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi King George56 (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Emma Kinema

The article Emma Kinema you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Emma Kinema for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typequick DYK nom review request

Hi Czar, I hope you're doing well! I was wondering if you would be willing to contribute to Template:Did you know nominations/Typequick? Another user RoySmith has begun a review, but it isn't very thorough. I believe the article could use a second opinion fromm a WP:VG mainstay. Thank you in advance!--Coin945 (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About your proposal to remove ethical egoism in WT:VA5

Actually Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Philosophy_and_religion#Approaches_(21_articles) should be changed to Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Philosophy_and_religion#Approaches_(22_articles), since the "approaches" sub-section in "ethics" section now contains 22 rather than 21 articles.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#Remove Ethical egoism

@RekishiEJ, thanks! If it's easier in the future, I think it'd be uncontroversial to make that minor correction directly, especially as VIT5 counts continue to fluctuate. czar 15:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What did the "it" in "If it's easier in the future" mean? I don't understand the meaning at all.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RekishiEJ, I mean that while I do appreciate the heads up, it would be faster/more direct to simply make the minor, uncontroversial correction in my original edit instead of messaging me (or other editors like me in the future) to do so. czar 16:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American vs. European dates

Czar: You seem in the business of enforcing American-only style of dating MM DD YYYYY rather than accepting DD MM YYYY, which is standard practice in Europe (and elsewhere, I believe): is there some particular driver for your actions? Respectfully - Aboudaqn (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louis_Adamic&diff=next&oldid=1027887348

? The edit summary you linked explains the edit in full. If you disagree, you're welcome to contest it or discuss on the talk page. czar 17:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not understand your explanation Aboudaqn (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA Nomination of Paul Goodman

The page has been reviewed by me and it meets the GA rules. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks at AfD

Hey. Thanks for the kindly redirection on my too-frequent answers.

I do think that the "contested" articles that TFD and I wiki-fence over get better for the mutual (if not always collegial) investment on both our parts, nevertheless. However, I may still be "shell shocked" from previous, and continuing wiki-fencing with TFD. Again, I appreciate your caution to pause to let other editors have a chance to chime in.

(1) Last year ten months plus on the American Revolutionary War for American independence, with fighting ending at Siege of Yorktown pretty much, versus the 'real' worldwide French-Spanish-American war against Britain including the Siege of Gibraltar in Spain and the Second Mysore War in India.

(2) It took over two calendar years to get the United States of America article to include Puerto Ricans as US citizens in a continuing (sometimes daily) wiki-fencing with TFD. Despite US law, federal court rulings, citizen PR military service, three UN-supervised referenda, Congressional Delegate privileges office, appointing two military freshmen to Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard Academies, PR representation in National Republican and National Democratic Conventions ... But we still had to sort through all the UN committees, conferences and conventions chaired by Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela that contradicted the other internationally sourced evidence "on balance". Nothing denying PR citizenship in the US passes at the UN General Assembly, but there are so many reports from reliable sources that Puerto Ricans cannot be US citizens because of historical colonialism (sic), they each had to be vetted in context ... so it took some months to do that ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A technical question.

The previously published article on the 1778-1787 county, titled "Ohio County (Virginia)", on the NORTH BANK of the Ohio River, with adequate citations from reliable sources, is lost to public view by an automatic link to Ohio County, West Virginia on the SOUTH BANK of Ohio River.

- Created at the American Revolutionary War incursion north of the Ohio River by Virginia militia Major George Rogers Clark, the LOST county article had substantial French-Speaking settlements at Cahokia and Vincennes. These together with Revolution veteran settlement were ceded by Virginia to the Northwest Territory in 1787.

- Please help to recover and reinstate the information as a separate article. Or, if you can give me a lead for general guidance, I can launch off into the wiki-spheres and give the restoration a good ol' 'college try' on my own . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheVirginiaHistorian, it looks like Ohio County, Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has no prior edit history—it's always been a redirect. I see no edit history, deleted or not, at Ohio County (Virginia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Is there prior text somewhere you were looking to restore? If you have multiple, reliable, independent sources to substantiate a standalone article on the Virginia county in specific, feel free to click that page's "edit" link and start building it over the redirect. I'm not as familiar with how the geographic features notability guideline works with historical entities but unless these two counties have nothing to do with each other, usually it suffices to cover a similar topic within another. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States might be able to offer advice as well. Happy editing! czar 10:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They have nothing to do with one another, and all of the information that was found at the previous Ohio County (Virginia) has been extinguished, such as the French settlement in Spanish Louisiana at St. Louis, providing militia units to support Virginia Major George Rogers Clark's capture of the French settlement at Vincennes in the American Revolutionary War, and their acceptance of Virginia governance with the persuasive assistance of the local Roman Catholic parish priests. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any prior edits or logs at "Ohio County (Virginia)". Perhaps you are thinking of a different title or phrasing? In any event, you would want to build that potential article at either Ohio County, Virginia (over the redirect) or at Draft:Ohio County, Viriginia, which is a recommended draft area where you can build the article without risking deletion. But in order to find/restore the "extinguished" prior content, I would need more information on where it once was located. czar 19:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, despite your published dictum above. I may have confounded an "Ohio County" north of the Ohio River read on a map long ago, versus the Illinois County, Virginia here at Wikipedia. Thank you again for checking it out for me here at Wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings under communist regimes (again)

I took a break from it and I would've hoped things would get better but they aren't. It's always the same stuff, the discussions go nowhere, etc. This is a good summary.

I don't trust the AfD or RfC process for this article because, despite Wikipedia clearly not being about voting, it boils down to that, because more users are just going to say "per sources" and our arguments for why they're engaging in original research, synthesis, and other policy violations, and sources don't support what they claim they do... they're just going to be ignored. I may have to go to the noticeboard for sources and go one by one whether each source support the article. If you can write a neutral AfD or RfC, go for it.

Even though I'm skeptical, that is the only solution. Thank you again for your time. Davide King (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Paul Goodman

The article Paul Goodman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paul Goodman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sahaib3005 -- Sahaib3005 (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Alberta Association of Architects

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alberta Association of Architects. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Note I don't think you closed it incorrectly given the information available to you at the time but given the new information I think it might need reassessment. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting: Editing clashes with another user

Hello Czar. I am sending you this message as I am being targeted by a random user who is accusing me of vandalism and falsifying information on an article here on Wikipedia. The article is about the South Korean movie, Once Upon a Time in High School. This user is even threatened to report me to the admins to have my account or, at the very least, my editing privileges removed. Before I tell you my request on this issue, I need to tell you how it all happened. So I was browsing through different articles on Wikipedia and then I encountered the Once Upon a Time in High School article. Upon reading it, I noticed that the last paragraph of the movie's plot was incorrect as I have seen the movie multiple times before and the last paragraph of the plot did not match with the movie's. I initially was taken aback for a few moments until I eventually decided to change the article so that the last paragraph was more accurate and correct. This was my first time editing an article on Wikipedia so I took careful actions when doing it. I even took the time to re-watch the movie once more before finalizing it, making sure there wasn't any errors. A week later, another user, the one I am referring to, reverts it back and starts accusing me of vandalism and falsifying information of the article. I then responded to the other user on the user's talk page, clarifying that I wasn't falsifying information nor vandalizing anything and I even provided a link of the movie for the other user to view to back my statements, but I have not heard from the user since. From there, I went back and undid his/her revision of my revision. I gradually waited for the other user to respond to my reply, but the other user instead went back to undid my revision again of Once Upon a Time in High School and once again accuses me of vandalism. This time, I started to get irritated and think that this other user is disregarding what I have to say and believes that he/she has justification for his/her action. I even looked up the revision history of the article and it seems that this may or may not be the first time he/she has done this to the article. Soon after, I did once more revision to the article and this again clarify that I not vandalizing nor falsifying anything, but the user still reverts it back and threatens me that he/she will report me to the admins. This is when I started to get on edge and decided to take matters into my own hands and contact the admins myself. I took some time to look up how to report to the admins, came across your name, and decided to message you. As for my request, I would like for you to confront this user and probably consider having him/her removed or blocked. You can find the user using this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:A580:3900:7558:734B:E6FB:64D4. When you go to the article and read the revision history, you can see a small conversation between me and the other user. For the link to the movie I used to back my statement, here it is: https://archive.org/details/once-upon-a-time-in-high-school. You may view the movie and the article side by side and decide who is correct. This is urgent as the more people vandalize and make innocents fall to their schemes, the more victims will fall into misinformation and disinformation. I have been a long time guest on Wikipedia and it hurts me to see someone drastically change an article, inputs false information, and then accuses others of falsifying information when it gets corrected. Thank you. Detective Stranger (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I don't know what can be done about the other editor, whose IP changes. However, I've reverted the article to the correct ending per the film. Schazjmd (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Detective Stranger, first, welcome to Wikipedia and I'm sorry your first editing experience has gone this way. It looks like @Schazjmd has confirmed the plot detail (thank you!) and can help monitor the page for changes. Since any editing community is bound to have disagreements, we have a general practice for resolving disputes: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The gist is that editors are encouraged to be bold in their edits, but when the edit is disputed (reverted), to discuss on the talk page (Talk:Once Upon a Time in High School) rather than reverting back and forth out of desperation, which is known as Wikipedia:Edit warring (and note that more than three reverts on a single page in 24 hours will result in an automatic block). If the talk page discussion does not have traction, there are plenty of ways to move forward, first by seeking a third party as you did on my talk page but also by asking a forum like WT:FILM or others suggested at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There is no rush, so if your edit is reverted, remember that there is always time to discuss and restore the suggested text at some future point. Hope this helps and that you'll decide to edit some other film articles! :) czar 23:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czar. I have seen the recent changes to the article and I would like to show my appreciation to you for taking the time to read my issue regarding my recent experience here on Wikipedia and taking action. It really demonstrates how people like you genuinely care about your users, editors, the Wikipedia standards, and so on. My first editing experience may be rough, but I still look forward to future endeavors here on Wikipedia with you, @Schazjmd, and many others. Again, thank you. Detective Stranger (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Candleabracadabra/Native Hawaiian cuisine

Hello, Czar,

I'm going through a list of orphaned talk subpages and came across this one you created. But there doesn't seem to be an associated article. Should this just be deleted or can you think of a place it can be moved to? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Looks like something lost in the shuffle from User talk:Candleabracadabra/Native Hawaiian cuisine and, in any event, it's already covered in Talk:Native cuisine of Hawaii's templates so I've deleted it. Thanks for checking! czar 01:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you know what to do with it. I'm coming across a lot of odd stuff. Apparently, when AFDs or PRODs are closed, the tools don't always delete article subpages, like archived talk pages and "To do" pages. Most everything showing up on the 1000+ page list is from after ~2014 so I guess before that, administrators relied more on manual deleting each page rather than deletion tools. I've also recently found that Twinkle will delete article redirects but not article redirect talk pages so maybe it's the same problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, if it helps, it looks like I was using a tool for that in 2014—probably User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD. If so, the good news is that was deprecated in 2017 and replaced with WP:XFDC, which is more robust. czar 02:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Type

Hello. It was the best I could do for now. I didn't find much material on the web. Best regards. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crass

@Locke Cole, looks like a days-old edit conflict from leaving the edit window open too long. It was meant to be a revert of the David King Estate edits but gone horribly wrong so I've reverted it. Thanks for the heads up! czar 01:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're good, I wasn't sure what the intent was there so I figured it was best to ask in case I missed something. =) Thanks!! —Locke Cole • t • c 02:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could use your insight on the talk page regarding The Last of Us Part II

Hey man so we're having a discussion on the talk page for The Last of Us Part II regarding whether or not the narrative/transgender character was polarizing among critics and if we should remove it. I saw you chime in on the "Universal acclaim" descriptor thing for The Last of Us Part II's reception, maybe you could chime in here as well. TheMassEffector (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism

Thank you for the links and suggestions, Czar. I'm not specifically interested in Anarchism but in plugging historical gaps, often to do with foreign subjects not covered in English Wikipedia pages. Most recently, this has had to do with the Spanish and French struggles from the last century.Dm4244 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi Czar,

To be fair, I'm happy to receive your invitation, and I'm willing to help improve articles' qualities about anarchism, especially about anarchism in Asia. However, I'm a little busy in real life recently. But if I have time I will help, so if you need my help, don't hesitate to let me know. Also, I had monitored some articles about anarchism.--ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 15:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bowser's Fury for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bowser's Fury is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowser's Fury until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SkippyKR (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Template:Flaglist+link

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Flaglist+link. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for the Bones - return?

Hey Czar,

Due to recently announced conference realignment news, UAB and Memphis will return to playing regularly as conference opponents. I think this may warrant a revival of the previously deleted article on the rivalry.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UAB–Memphis rivalry

Reference article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/10/21/aac-expansion-battle-of-the-bones/
Additional article: https://www.al.com/uab/2021/10/uab-birmingham-breathe-in-the-sweet-smell-of-victory.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanternofdiogenes (talk • contribs) 19:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much that the conference realignment itself warrants revisiting the deleted article, but those two new, linked sources are a good reason to revisit it, absolutely. Restored! and subsequent discussion should move to its talk page. czar 03:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Czar! How are you? Hope everything is alright. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 07:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be able to please revert back the deleted history of Draft:Barbie (film), Draft:Flash Gordon (upcoming film), Draft:The Rosie Project (film), Draft:Untitled Disney fantasy animated film, Draft:The Division (film), and Draft:Bob the Musical? It seems to be deleted while I was gone. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 07:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! All good—welcome back! Restored these. czar 02:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, when restoring G13 drafts, please make a minor edit to the page or remove the CSD tag or they are likely to be deleted again. See Draft:The Rosie Project (film). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missed those. Thank you! czar 06:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks man. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 07:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ohmann

This seems up your alley? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings, nice work! czar 04:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to speak of at the moment, but thought I'd mention in case you were interested. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thanks for your mensage in my page! I have done one or two things in english wikipedia, but i am actually a editor in portuguese wikipedia, and i will problably remain exclusively there for some time since i do not have a sufficient grasp of english grammar to really contribute. But we should definetely do more exchanges to expand both projects! Nice to meet you! JoaquimCebuano (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JoaquimCebuano, thanks! Do you know if there is there some way for us to be notified when there are new articles for us to translate from the Portuguese Wikipedia? czar 14:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar I dont really know, i can only think that someone could do this mediation. Some articles that i dave done in portuguese that i think should exist in en.wiki is pt:Leila Al-Shami, pt:Maia Ramnath, pt:Federação das Organizações Sindicalistas Revolucionárias do Brasil and, another suggestion, is to translate it:Misato Toda. One thing that i really want to ask is why in en.wiki the ICL article got redirected to AIT? This seens really wrong for me... Anyway, thanks! Lets exchange recommendations about contemporary moviments and researchers of anarchism, i think this is a important part to cover! JoaquimCebuano (talk)

Restore

Hi again, need restoration of deleted edits from Draft:The Woman King (film) and Draft:Blade (upcoming film). Thanks --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 20:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain Assassin!,

Done czar 06:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd ask that the Blade restoration be reversed. I asked for the edits prior to July 19, 2019 to be removed here due to a banned user sock puppet requesting the histories be restored and the request was carried out. Rusted AutoParts 06:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reapplied the May 2019 sock deletion (G5), refunded the prior non-sock edits from 2017 (G13). czar 03:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:AFD8

Wikipedia:AFD8, 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/Wikipedia:AFD8 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:AFD8 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. Qwerfjkl talk 18:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why Marx Was Right

Hi! I gather anarchism is maybe more your area of expertise than Marxism, but I see you've worked on a lot of politics-related book articles and I'm looking for reviews at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Why Marx Was Right/archive1. All feedback welcome, if you're interested. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Czar a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Czar, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, Czar!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello Czar, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022.
Happy editing,
JOE BRO 64 16:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Anarchism edits

Hello thank you for your message. I will check out the links when I have the time. Thank you for posting them. Please have a good day. Take care, Centralia1 Centralia1 (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

anarchism

Hey Czar, thanks for reaching out. I'm admittedly very new to editing on wikipedia, so I appreciate the help and the heads up. Would definitely love to be more involved in coordinated efforts. Thanks! Anarkiddie (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Czar!

Happy New Year!

Czar,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Happy new year, dear friend!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Czar!

Happy New Year!

Czar,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Progression rainbow/project

Template:Progression rainbow/project has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks

Hi Czar! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]