User talk:Premeditated Chaos/Archive 18

Multiple issues

Well, it's been a couple of days of unpremeditated chaos. But thank you for nudging me to visit Syabi, where I saw all of Atsushi Fujiwara's photobooks and was particularly impressed by Nangokushō.

I'm told (admittedly not by you) of "multiple issues", specifically that (and I quote):

This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. (November 2015)
This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (September 2015)

The former: no. (Other articles should link to it, but that's a different story.) It's bristling with links (some via WikiData). The latter: yes, in the list of exhibitions. (Sourcing every exhibition in a list that some previous editor has lazily copy/pasted from one created by the artist always involves major drudgery. I've started this, but ... yawn.)

The facts that the "article" on Fujiwara in en:WP was garbage (and that in ja:WP still is), and that neither Yang Seungwoo nor Takehiko Nakafuji appears to have any article in any Wikipedia, combine to depress me. Particularly in view of the assiduous (and uncritical) attention paid by WP editors to Japanese pablum for the young and the young at brain. Time for me to turn off the computer and to "get a life" (for a couple of hours). -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm glad something good came of me mulling through the orphaned Japanese photographer list (both your visit and the improvement to the article). I've pulled the maintenance tags because I think they've been pretty much dealt with, and I nominated it at DYK because I think your hard work deserves the recognition. You can find the nom at Template:Did you know nominations/Atsushi Fujiwara if you feel like commenting :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thank you for your two suggestions there. Errm, I'm not keen to turn the spotlight on Butterfly, for three reasons. First, I have a hunch that I don't get the book; I mean, I kind of understand what Fujiwara's doing and I do understand what people say about the book, but somehow it doesn't click with me and I'm pretty sure that it's me whose at fault. Secondly, it's a seemingly private book. Yes, it's published, but only in an edition of a few hundred. I'd guess that the protagonist might not be so happy to think of hundreds of Wikipedia-surfers investigating her. Thirdly, I don't relish the prospect of mouth-breathers in search of salacious content writing stupid comments on my article.

As for Poet Island, good idea. Almost certainly Fujiwara's childhood visit was part of the reason why he returned, but the major reason would have been his realization that Akashi had been cooped up in this isolation hospital, writing celebratory poems while effectively imprisoned and with impending/actual blindness and tracheotomy. (Recommended read.) So how about the following?

... that for his photobook Poet Island, Atsushi Fujiwara returned to the leper colony Nagashima Aiseien to depict the world of the poet Kaijin Akashi, who had lived, gone blind, and died there?

I'm not sure of the rules: in terms of editable characters (e.g. the 26 in "'''[[Atsushi Fujiwara]]'''"), it's over 200; in terms of visible characters (e.g. the 16 in "Atsushi Fujiwara"), it's under. (Or so I think. It's been a long day, and I've just downed a richly deserved beer.) And the big problem is that there's no en:WP (or ja:WP) article on Akashi and no prospect of one. (I couldn't amass the needed sources, and I'm utterly unqualified to write about Japanese poetry.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like your hook, it's quite elegant. I've replaced the Butterfly hook with your version. I think the rule is for visible characters so it should be fine, but in any case, they're usually a bit lenient with the hook squeaking over the character count. I confess I'm quite curious about Butterfly now. The preview photos from Poet Island look really lovely; I quite like abandoned places so it seems like it would be up my alley. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble with this. First, it's Akashi's physical world, and I'd like to point out that this wasn't where he spent his last years after a career in poetry but instead where he wrote the poetry. However:

... that for his photobook Poet Island, Atsushi Fujiwara returned to the leper colony Nagashima Aiseien to depict the physical world of Kaijin Akashi, who had written poetry as his health declined and he went blind there?

is too wordy even as it is, and without saying "the poet Kaijin Akashi" it risks giving the impression that he was merely a casual or occasional poet. Secondly, it makes Akashi more interesting than Fujiwara, and we have nothing on offer for Akashi. But I've just realized that yes WP does offer a couple of uninteresting stubs (in French and German). (Each is titled "Akashi Kaijin", as is right; but as is wrong in terms of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles.)

How about:

... that for his photobook Poet Island, Atsushi Fujiwara returned to the leper colony Nagashima Aiseien to depict the world of the poet Kaijin Akashi, who had lived, gone blind, and died there?

Just think how this nudge to read something in French or German will offend the monoglots who slept through their second-language classes in grade school, heh heh. -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pee-esses: (1) Unfortunately Butterfly had a dream is out of stock at Shashasha; maybe they'll get more in, because copies were in stock at Sōkyūsha's bookshop as recently as yesterday. Shashasha does offer Poet Island and the other pair. (2) "Earwig percentage"? -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote you a present: Kaijin Akashi. I'm also unqualified, but I basically only write articles on topics I don't know a thing about, so I decided to take the leap. If I can get it to 1500 characters, we can make it a twofer DYK, which is kind of neat. There's probably enough available if I dredge JSTOR and anything else I have access to, but I'm almost off work so I'll have to get back to it tomorrow. I can probably figure something out for the hook once I've had sufficient coffee and time to think on it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - Earwig's Tool is the standard copyvio checker. It spits out a percentage of copied text compared to a source. Often it's a false positive if there are lots of proper nouns on a page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah . . . thank you. Akashi's an interesting person, and there's a dismaying amount available about him. Books full of it, indeed. I've done a very little work on the budding article, but really, I'm pressed for time, and I know squat about tanka, waka, or for that matter about non-constrained Japanese poetry. (Ahem, or, come to think of it, about non-Japanese poetry. The closest I've come in WP is Morris Bishop.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay in responding. I managed to get Kaijin Akashi up to 1500 characters, so hopefully I can sneak it into the DYK and make it a two-for-one combo. Speaking of, I added another hook - see if you like it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to DYK suggestions

Hi Premeditated Chaos thank you for reviewing this DYK nomination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Helen_Appo_Cook. I appreciate your time. I've expanded the lead, moved the SB Anthony reference to the activism section and created a Alt 2 teaser with your suggested copy. I can't help but think how formidable Mrs. Cook must have been! Hope these edits capture your request, though I'm not sure if I should answer on your talk page or the nomination talk page. Nicolet1327 (talk)

Hi sorry about the delay! I've responded on the DYK nom :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akashi's start

Thank you for your good work on/for the two articles. But we have a problem:

1. Noda/Akashi "started to write poetry in traditional Japanese forms while working as a primary school teacher": which I sourced to Ikeda's page about him. Of course, it's imaginable that Ikeda is wrong, or that I misunderstood something.

2. "While at Nagashima Aiseien, [Akashi] began to write poetry, primarily in the traditional haiku and waka formats": which you sourced to one or both of two articles by Kathryn Tanaka. Of these two, "Writing ties in Japan" barely mentions Akashi (though it does say something about "leprosy literature", so I don't dispute its usefulness or quoteworthiness). I lack access to "Contested histories and happiness" (unless perhaps I pay); does this really say that he started after he was institutionalized?

I'll leave this matter with you, as I have to leave the interwebs right now for a couple of days. (Incidentally, I'm in too much of a rush to check if it was haiku; I'd thought it was tanka.) But I do think that something has to be done here, as the article contradicts itself. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original wording there was a leftover from the French Wikipedia article. Keeping in mind that I'm using Google translate, I'm not sure I see where Ikeda says his writing started while he was a schoolteacher. This timeline by Dr. Hisayo Okano also doesn't mention poetry during his teaching career, but says that he started "composition and haiku" in 1933 after his caregivers relieved his "mental confusion". That could be an translation thing though - it's possible that in context it means that he started writing again after stopping due to mental confusion. I'll do more digging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, this quote from Akashi says he didn't start writing tanka until he was in his 30s. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your good work while I was computerless; let's go with your sources.

A note on File:Kaijin Akashi.jpg: Ikeda says that it was taken in Akashi's later years and that it's from the extreme right of a group photo. We find the photo here; larger, but no better, it's here. The web page says that the photo was supplied by 長島愛生園歴史館, i.e. Nagashima Aisei-en Rekishikan, or something like the Nagashima Aisei-en historical museum, whose website is bilingually uninformative. None of this should affect its copyright status in any way. -- Hoary (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the file's info page with that anyway, just for completeness' sake. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ají catalán.

Sorry for the lag. Now I plunged to reply you and I lost the link to my reference. For what I remember (and can imagine due to the poorness of the coverage); it surely doesn't detail if it's sweet or hot. Indeed they're both, sweet and hot, as they're two varieties, one sweet and other hot. They may not be the true fire, but surely one of those is enough to enchilar the toughest Mexican. I wouldn't use more than a quarter catalán in dish, indeed a quarter is way too much. I'm sorry there's not much information about them (though on a recent episode of master chef Uruguay they used them). --Neurorebel (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the cultivar

Honestly I'm not totally sure about the variety, but it surely is a proper cultivar as is described by a different name and is only known in Uruguay, if not they would call it ají dulce or ají picante. For sure some agricultural engeneer would know a lot more. What indedd I'm sure is:

it's not paprika
it's not ají putaparió
it's not jalapeño
its not a bell pepper.
It has at least (surely more) 50 years in Uruguay.

Ok, but regardless, the point was that it didn't have a proper reference and can't be included in that list without one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal dreamtime legends page

Tell him to stay in America, he knows nothing of Australian Dreamtime legends — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamilton36 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Islanders (video game)

Hello! Your submission of Islanders (video game) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Linden Jay

Hello. Would it be possible to retrieve the above-mentioned page please? I was still creating it and editing it and I was going to use the copied material to fill in all the information. Or at least retrieve it without the copyrighted material, if possible. That'd be much appreciated! Thanks, --Davideventi (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing was a copy of this page. There's nothing for me to send you that wasn't already on that page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bio bit was, because, as I said, it was still a draft and I was still editing it. But the whole part with the credits and releases was not a copy and it took time to put together. Any chance you could retrieve the page without the copied material please? --Davideventi (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't believe you; you tried to submit the article and it got declined because it was still a copyvio. In any case, I just went to email you the rest of it and you don't have email enabled. You need to enable email so I can send the rest. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have added my email. --Davideventi (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Islanders (video game)

On 25 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Islanders (video game), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that minimalist city-building game Islanders deliberately omits features such as resource accumulation and technology research in order to focus on the core building placement mechanic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Islanders (video game). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Islanders (video game)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does one edit this certain problem?

Hi, PMC.😊 Do you have a second? I've ran into something wrong in Wikipedia, but I have no idea how to edit it.

If you are interested in helping, please visit these three links:

In the pages that open, you should be able to spot a grey box titled "Sherlock Holmes at Wikipedia's sister projects". The box looks okay on the first link, but not on the other two.

I understand the HTML side of this problem: The text labels are given an arbitrary width of 182 pixels, but the Minerva and Timeless skins add a padding of 1em to the box. Because of insufficient space, the label are placed on the next line. But I don't know where I must fix this problem. So far, I know how to edit articles. I know about templates too. But how do I edit a skin? Or, do I need to edit a skin in the first place? If not, where must I edit? Flowing dreams (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good to hear from you! I'm sorry to say that I have absolutely no idea how you would fix that. My technical skills cap out at moderately complex template work (and even then I usually need to use trial and error to reverse-engineer something that's already functional). The code-minded folks who hang out at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) would probably be able to help, though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I'll drop by this (~chuckle~) village pump now. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any time! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MFD 20 August 2019

The daily subheadings for MFD are disarranged in that August 20 is between August 27 and August 28. This seems to have happened about when you were closing the MFDs on the abandoned Canadian portals and deleting the portals, but I don't know what causes the days to get disarranged. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, usually stuff like that is a Legobot meltdown rather than anything to do with XfDcloser. It seems to be fixed now though? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Kristleifur Björnsson

Hello Premeditated Chaos. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kristleifur Björnsson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: exhibiting art in multiple notable galleries and museum indicates significance. Thank you. So Why 07:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy on olds

I deleted Stereophonic Space Sound Unlimited at your suggestion. The original author who has obviously been watching this for thirteen years complained. I restored it to draft:Stereophonic Space Sound Unlimited but so far nothing has happened. I suspect that they may accept my comments about notability and let it die.

I have just deleted Granite State Communications. In this case, I expect complaints. I will restore and it will acquire decent references. But I will wait for complaints.

Please go on looking for established articles with a lack of evidence of notability but I suggest you mark them with {{prod}} rather than speedy. If a prod is removed without any improvement then you may definitely apply a speedy tag. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you anticipate complaints about deleting a speedy-tagged article, feel free to leave the article for the next admin to review, or decline the speedy by removing the tag. I don't believe I require your permission to carry on tagging articles that meet the speedy deletion criteria, but I appreciate you coming here to grant it nonetheless. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For my lame curiosity ...

How did you land up over Amit Wanchoo?! There are some gold-standard-trash among old articles ..... ∯WBG^converse 16:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wanchoo is in Category:Orphaned articles from June 2010. I surf orphan categories regularly for just that kind of crap. It's absolutely stunning what got overlooked in the days before AfC and NPP. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I will start digging through the category too; by the way, Wanchoo is now at AfD ..... ∯WBG^converse 05:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magne Lerø

I removed this speedy deletion tagging as he has been director/editor of several notable publications, and is listed in Hvem er hvem?. You are of course free to take it to AfD if you so wish. Regards, decltype (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Eugenia Cooney

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eugenia Cooney. 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. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 17:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Atsushi Fujiwara

On 3 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Atsushi Fujiwara, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the depiction of the ruins of the leper colony Nagashima Aiseien Sanatorium in Atsushi Fujiwara's 2015 photobook Poet Island was inspired by the poetry of Kaijin Akashi, who lived, wrote, and ultimately died there in 1939? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Atsushi Fujiwara. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kaijin Akashi

On 3 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kaijin Akashi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the depiction of the ruins of the leper colony Nagashima Aiseien Sanatorium in Atsushi Fujiwara's 2015 photobook Poet Island was inspired by the poetry of Kaijin Akashi, who lived, wrote, and ultimately died there in 1939? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kaijin Akashi), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Goodhart

Hello, PMC. I was wondering if you could look again at the close you made at this page. There were four people arguing delete and three voting keep, so pretty even. None of those voting delete answered how she didn't meet the guidelines at WP:ENT #1 or showed consideration of the WP:ATDs and they did show evidence they hadn't really done WP:BEFORE. Could it be relisted? Thanks for looking into this, Boleyn (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, sorry about the late reply. I took some time to re-read the arguments and the sources presented and ultimately I remain on the side of deletion. DGG quite rightly pointed out that the sources you posted were mainly gossip sites and/or trivial mentions. Even the best of them, the BBC and Cosmo articles, are basically a bunch of quotes/statements from her about another topic (mental health & reality TV) - they aren't really about her personally. The MTV article is substantial, but not independent, considering Geordie Shore is an MTV production. I'll update the close with my rationale so it's there for future. If you disagree with me still, I won't be offended if you take it to DRV (I never am). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of rural localities in Ivanovo Oblast

Thanks, but this one went completely wrong, all localities there from Irkutsk Oblast, and the template is from Ingushetia. Would it be easy to identify why? I can of course manually transfer everything to Irkutsk Oblast and delete the page, but of you are using automatic tools I would better not do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long story short: I copy/pasted the list into the wrong tab because I'm a clown. I've fixed it, lol. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help me interpret this SPI case?

Hi. 😊 I hope I'm not bothering in the bad time of the week. I think I need the advice of someone experienced.

I filed a SPI case that got rejected. I need to know what I did wrong and how can I avoid it in the future. Here is a link to the case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gorgale.

I thought about contacting the closing clerk, but his talk page makes it quite clear that I would be unsettling him if I did so. And besides, he is a celebrity Wikipedian. (I've seen his name in a magazine.) I wouldn't want to bother him.

Cheers. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hello, flowing dreams

I think Ivanvector's response on the SPI was pretty clear. Most of the accounts you listed haven't edited in years (one last edited in 2013!) and therefore are stale and can't be checked. Checkusers, I believe, only have access to data from the past 3 months. So there is no point in asking them to check accounts that haven't edited in years unless they have already be proven to be a sock with a recently active account that they can be compared to. I also wouldn't say that your report got "rejected" as Ivanvector posted a thoughtful response. Rejected reports just get closed without much comment at all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz. Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate that you cared to write it. However, I should say it brings up more question than it answers. Ivanvector is not a CheckUser; his investigation has been purely behavioral. That's where I went wrong. Now, it is important to realize what I exactly want here: I filed a case and it got dismissed. (Well, that's what happens to cases. Some get dismissed.) But does that mean I made a grave error in judgment? As I have told PMC before, I came to Wikipedia to be less lonely. Hence, I cannot afford to misjudge people. If I could help it, I would not file any other SPI cases.

On a cheerier note, you wrote: 'I also wouldn't say that your report got "rejected".' Well, you are right, but only because you wrote "report", not "case". Cases get "rejected" or "dismissed" after a review or hearing. But to reject a report means not to review it. After a report gets reviewed, however, it might get "dismissed as [what-not]". So, Ivanvector did not reject my report, but he did reject the case. Cheers. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, thanks for covering this for me while I was away :) flowing dreams, Ivanvector may not be a CU, but he is an SPI clerk; they are trusted editors who help out at SPI to lessen the load on CUs, for example by evaluating and closing cases where CU is not required. In this case, it was mostly declined because CU wasn't possible given the age of the edits. Having an SPI get declined isn't a mark against you and I don't think you made a grave error in judgement. Many users don't realize that CU data isn't held permanently, so you aren't the first to file such an SPI and I doubt you'll be the last. No worries! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Hearing it from an experienced person means a lot. 😊 flowing dreams (talk page) 10:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been

mentioned by me at PD t/p.

Notwithstanding that, can you please re-write the first paragraph of Subhash_Kak#Indology for me? I have done the exact same stuff, that you have criticized and found grave-enough to merit a mention as FOF (i.e. inserting the interpretation of Kak's writings by acclaimed scholars in wiki-voice). ∯WBG^converse 16:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should do it yourself? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No; you are using your authority to dictate content-changes and hence, I am inclined to see your way of writing in a very similar situation. ∯WBG^converse 17:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, aside from the last sentence (which I reworded and expanded a little), it was mostly unproblematic. You had some grammatical issues I also took the liberty of fixing :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

PMC, thank you for your hard work. I can only imagine how difficult this has been for all of you, and I appreciate the time and energy you all spent on this. --valereee (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. I know it's not a decision that made everyone happy, but I'm not sure any decision would have been. Hopefully now the community can start to heal and figure out where to go from here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf?

An admin should know much better than this! Please be more careful. And respect existing citation styles, per WP:CITEVAR. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think you mean Thank you for adding a citation. You probably didn’t notice that the article was using a different method because most Wikipedia articles use inconsistent styles since they’re written by multiple people with varying degrees of familiarity of how citations work. I’m sorry for my rude edit summary after you improved this article. I’ve made the style consistent for you. Thanks again. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. But I should have added "please also respect the prevailing WP:ENGVAR" (Arnolfini Portrait). These are sloppy edits, let alone from an admin & arb. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if Wikipedia is working as intended: someone (Premeditated Chaos) improves someone elses work, and the other person notices something else that can be fixed. This sort of thing happens all the time, and there was absolutely no reason to expect any editor to notice the things you are pointing out: it's not like PMC was changing versions of English or citation styles. She was adding information to articles to expand them. You noticed minor MOS issues, and fixed them. You both improved the encyclopedia, but her edits actually increased the verifiable information within the article. There might be a case to calmly point out the MOS issues, but this isn't the way to go about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphans

Hey PMC, I'm back from my break, so what do you say we team up and try to kill Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009 off again? Thanks, SITH (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! I was wondering where you'd gotten to :) Let's give it a go! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) If you don't mind me asking, how do you plan "kill it off"? flowing dreams (talk page) 05:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're working on clearing everything out from the category, mostly by ensuring the articles are linked from elsewhere so they aren't orphans anymore and don't need to be tagged as such, but sometimes by merging or deleting them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I linked Infinite Disk elsewhere, but it is still in that category. Am I missing something? flowing dreams (talk page) 06:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remove the orphan tag manually. The orphan tag is a bit unusual in that it doesn't produce a visible banner on its own unless it's brand new, but it'll be at the top like other maintenance tags in the page's source. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Premeditated Chaos, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!--PATH SLOPU 16:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cheers I forgot I even had myself in there :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello PMC, I don't recall us ever being formally introduced, but I was hoping I could make a request. Regarding the block on Richie: I'd ask you to take into consideration a couple things.

Praxicae actually requested some assistance on the O2 Victoria Warehouse Manchester article here
Richie didn't mention Praxicae by name, or address them in any way, but simply carried out the removal of some WP:COPYVIO information. (which we say we take seriously, and I believe have some mention in our ToS or legal statements?)
On top of that Richie then spent quite a bit of time: (21:44 - 23:40) fixing up the article. [1]
It wasn't one of Praxicae's articles, they simply tagged the copyvio stuff.

I understand rules are rules and all that. I know there was an Arbcom case. (I didn't look deeply enough into that to see why it was one sided on the IBan), The "school block" (31) hours was a bit on the snarky side IMO. And jumping past 48 hours, and 72 hours right into 1 week seems a bit harsh given the extenuating circumstances. I'm hoping you'll at least consider these things. Please. and Thank you for your time. — Ched (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but no. Ritchie has been told numerous times to leave Praxidicae alone, and he is clearly not getting the message. WP:BANEX does not contain an exception for "but she tagged the article for deletion and I wanted to fix it". Ritchie's constant helicoptering over articles which Prax has tagged for CSD was one of the major factors in the IBAN in the first place, so doing it more is not an extenuating circumstance. There was nothing so pressing about that copyvio that no other admin on the entire site couldn't have handled it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude or butt in... but... You could easily say that Praxidicae had bath faith in requesting a speedy with out doing WP:BEFORE and that Ritchie is simply rescuing an article. And how is this about Praxi, when it's more about rescuing an article, PMC, I am not sure you're seeing all the facts here, maybe you should have another review of the situation. Govvy (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the interaction ban is not clear here, precisely? There is no exception in BANEX for article rescue. It's not optional, it doesn't apply only when Ritchie feels Prax is editing in good faith or whatever other excuse. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is wikipedia, people edit articles, people will intercept each other, what you deem an interaction ban is certainly sketchy, who's in the wrong here? There is no right or wrong, it's all grey area, but your interpretation of a rule doesn't make that rule just. The way I see it, you are banning Ritchie for fixing up an article another user wanted to delete of the system. I still feel you've completely overlooked the obvious. Govvy (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what you deem an interaction ban is certainly sketchy - no, it isn't. It's an interaction ban. The terms of interaction bans are set at WP:IBAN. As an experienced user, Ritchie is familiar with the usual provisions of an IBAN. In his case specifically, Ritchie is well aware he is not permitted to interact with Prax, because of the interaction ban. He chose to do so anyway. That's a violation of the interaction ban. I blocked Ritchie as a result of his decision to violate his interaction ban a second time. There is no exception for fixing articles, or assuming the other editor is editing in bad faith, or any other excuse one wants to make. No IBAN or TBAN would be enforceable if we allowed that kind of excuse. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick clarification request. Was this block made in your capacity as an arbitrator, or an AE block or a block made as an administrator enforcing an interaction ban? I can't see anywhere (in the block log or block notice) that you have made this clear, and this is presumably why Ritchie put an unblock request up on his talk page. It is concerning that you (as an arbitrator) did not make clear whether or not you were acting as an arbitrator and what the appeal options were. By failing to do this you left others needing to point this out (as I see xeno has done here). It looks bad when an arbitrator swoops in, and another arb then turns up to take part in the discussion. Also, by failing to say if you were acting on a complaint received, it gives the impression that arbitrators are monitoring Ritchie. That, and the comment left by Mkdw give a very chilling effect. There are reasons that arbitration enforcement exists and that arbitrators don't tend to get involved in day-to-day enforcement. Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I responded as a result of private complaints received by email. I happened to be online dredging my inbox at the time, so I was presumably the first "on scene" so to speak. I blocked in my capacity as an arbitrator enforcing an interaction ban enacted by Arbcom motion. I apologize for not making that explicit; I assumed it was, and that's on me for making that assumption. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that. Carcharoth (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomical models

Hi! I saw your proposed deletion message for genital insert (which I have no problem with) in which you noted that we didn't have an article for anatomical models. Now we do. -- The Anome (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's fantastic. I was genuinely surprised we didn't. I'll redirect one to the other as an ATD, if that's ok by you? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow contributor

to the apparent hoax or is the topic way too niche? ∯WBG^converse 14:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And can you kindly enable Prod-logging in the TW preferences? ∯WBG^converse 14:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in my PROD, I did not find so much as a trivial mention of these cells on any science-based database that I checked. If you have a source, feel free to de-tag the article. If not, I fail to see what your problem is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 unblock request

Since they are claiming in their unblock request that the violation happened by accident, would you object to an unblock? El_C 15:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would. I don't believe he failed to notice that Praxidicae was the tagger, considering he had to go into the history to do a revdel. If he had self-reverted at that point I might feel differently, but he carried out the revdel and continued editing the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, at any any case, thank you for the prompt response. El_C 15:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... just curious; should he have left the copyvio in place? or self-revert to the copyright violating state? Really??? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He could and should have asked another admin to deal with it. The copyvio had already been up for over two hours, another ten minutes would not have caused the world to end. Fish+Karate 10:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that I really find that aspect of Wikipedia hard to take? Not only that I often need to wait for more than 10 minutes for admin help, but also: leaving anything in a bad state because you "earned" restrictions seems so wrong to me. - I haven't been blocked so far, but really wonder if a block would teach me anything. I worked on Kafka, that helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This probably isn't the best place to have the conversation, but imagine if you had someone who kept following you round Wikipedia undoing or changing many of your edits, and you react badly, and rightly or wrongly it got to the point where you feel harassed and complain, and Arbcom put an interaction ban in place so you and the other person are to strictly leave each other alone. But then the other editor just keeps on doing the same thing and a bunch of well-respected long-term editors say "oh but this was an OK edit and well-intentioned and so it should be allowed this time". How would you feel? This is the sort of thing that T&S have previously had concerns about - the ability of en.Wiki to self-police harassment. We either have interaction bans or we do not, they need to be bright lines, we can't sort of have them but they don't really count if intentions are good. Fish+Karate 11:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wasting time on that imagination. I know that people follow me even to my thank you clicks, but I don't make a fuss over it. The key question remains: should content be sacrificed because of editors not getting along with each other? These days, I remember how we (the so-called "communinity") banned a productive editor, who then created another sock to fix the banning, which was reverted because it was the edit of a banned editor. LOL. Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)--[reply]

Fish and karate has already said pretty much everything I would've wanted to say in reply, so thank you for that. Gerda, the point of a ban is that it's a ban. You don't get to edge around it because you think you're doing the right thing, whether it's a TBAN, IBAN, or siteban, no matter who you are. Content creation is not a free pass for negative behavior. I don't know that there's much more here for me to say without repeating myself again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PMC, I've bitten my tongue above, but your failure to assume good faith (and quoting WP:PACT on Ritchie333's talk page) — that does not sit well with me. El_C 11:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's bizarre is that multiple arbs descend on Ritchie's talk within the hour; yet WP:RFAR hasn't seen hide nor hair of an arb since...10 October?! ——SerialNumber54129 13:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This entire bunch seem to be grossly incompetent barring one/two; don't respond to open RFARs for a month or so and claim that the mailing lists were busy whilst simultaneously failing to acknowledge emails sent to them and claiming that they were busy in on-wiki business .... ∯WBG^converse 04:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, PMC, an unblock appeal has been filed at AN: here. El_C 23:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Chris Ronayne Page

I am writing you in hopes that there is some way that I can undelete Chris Ronayne's page. I am not entirely sure what I am doing (obviously), but it is relatively essential to our nonprofit. I understand that there were multiple issues with the Chris Ronayne page that were not addressed. However, the page was not being monitored previously. Since its deletion it has been my responsibility to update and recreate the page. If I am not entirely sure what I am doing, but I am just looking to undelete the page so that I can update it, and fix the previous issues with the page. Chris Ronayne is an important political figure within the Cleveland, OH community, and if necessary I have the sources for that. I know that there were 3 specific issues with the page mainly concerning source citation. I am currently looking looking to fix those issues and believe that I can. In addition he is the CEO of of University Circle, a location in Cleveland with an accredited page. Not only is his page important for those looking to learn more about him politically, it is also essential for University Circle, so that we can inform our readers of who is running our organization, what our values are, and why Chris is someone essential to the success of University Circle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbeyhughes13 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:2020j

You appear to have deleted this user talk page by mistake in 2017 when processing a MfD of the appropriate user page. Would you mind undeleting it? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for catching that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not understanding

PMC - when male editors are bullying and gaslighting a female editor, the normal reaction of a female editor is to seek help from an admin - which is exactly what I did. The primary editor who was involved apologized to me - admitted the bullying - so why on earth does my pointing out the problem, asking the behavior to stop and seeking help from an admin justify a t-ban? That was not sliding into prior behavior - the accusation is as false as the wrongfully perceived use of gaslighting being a horrible accusation that inferred psychological manipulation. What you are saying to me now reminds me of what women went through back in the 60s - sorry, ma'am but if you would stop wearing short dresses, men won't attack you. Wow, that just blows me away. Ma'am, if you will stop accusing bullies of bullying and gaslighting you, you will not get t-banned. I did not slip into prior behavior - you apparently did not look closely enough at my initial appeal - Awilley is the one who added WP:ROPE on his own when he closed it. The discussion shows that most of the things I was accused of were false, and the few admins who wrongfully accused me of things I didn't do and refused to admit to are the ones attacking me now - see Mongo's statement. It's the truth. I am no longer going to argue because quite frankly, WP:IDGAF anymore. It is a useless waste of my time when the very people we trust to do proper research and evaluate in a fair and reasonable manner have made up their minds that you are in the wrong, despite the glaring evidence. I can't begin to describe my disappointment in this entire process. Sad, sad, sad. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're disappointed in the process. It's clear to me from your posts at ARCA and now this post that you are not able to view your own behavior with any measure of objectivity. Drawing an allusion between anything I said at ARCA to victim-blaming in sexual assault cases is deeply disrespectful to anyone who has been a victim of such crimes. The discussions linked from the ARCA do not show that what you were accused of was false; very much the opposite in my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Urbanec, I don't know how I wound up on your list. I have removed myself from it; please don't add me back in the future. I am not interested in coding whatsoever. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mfd completion

Hi, could you delete the other pages listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Featured_content/Lists/Goldfrapp_discography? DexDor^(talk) 20:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aagh, I keep forgetting the XfDcloser gadget isn't good with multi-noms. It's done now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sydney

Either I or someone else should do a bulk AFD of all of them based on the consensus there. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's what I was asking - if you're planning to look into it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney NYE 2008-2009

What policy did that page violate? The article was sourced and had more than routine coverage. It met GNG. And what about my suggestion to at least leave the sourced content in the main article? And why are you encouraging other users to nominate further articles for deletion? Bookscale (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus that the article did not meet the notability threshold for individual events (see WP:NEVENT, particularly WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE). While the concept of NYE in Sydney obviously does pass GNG, individual years of the NYE celebration do not. I asked ViperSnake151 about their plans out of interest - if one such individual event is found non-notable, it follows that the rest will also be, so I was curious if they planned to pursue the series. As always, feel free to take the discussion to WP:DRV if you believe my close was in error. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - done. Bookscale (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydney_New_Year's_Eve_2008–09. 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. Bookscale (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays


	Happy Holidays! May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2020 and beyond.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラ PはPremeditated Chaosたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ P 03:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orchard Road (song)

I see three editors favouring a merge, one for keep, and one for redirect, so how did you decide that the consensus was to redirect? --Michig (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect are essentially the same thing, since typically after a merge, the child article becomes a redirect. All the content is available in the history for anyone to merge over at their leisure. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that a close as merge leaves (or should do) AfD merge to/from tags, prompting someone to carry out the merge, which a close as redirect doesn't. The fact that there was consensus to retain content in some form is significant. --Michig (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, I've been offline for a couple days. You have a good point and I'll go fix the close. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Robert Lee Burns

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert Lee Burns you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of From Hill To Shore -- From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Robert Lee Burns

The article Robert Lee Burns you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert Lee Burns for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of From Hill To Shore -- From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]