Hi, in my own userspace I have started a table in which I am trying to super-succinctly summarize the Not-Votes and perspectives that have been raised. This is a work in progress, but I have at least finished my initial data-entry for what you've said. If you would like to me change anything, please use the talk page attached to the table. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! Thanks for your edit to the table, which I reverted. By definition, the table is a distillation of my own brain matter, so I'm the only one I'm allowing to edit it directly. (It's based on WP:OTHERSOPINION, which by definition is what I think other people think.) So I reverted your changes. However its important to me that I honestly try to write what other people think, so I tried to accurately write both your thoughts and the process used to add them (since I don't have a cite to some other comment somewhere else). Please review this diff and indicate if that will work for you. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
That is a misrepresentation. I have never said that I wanted "Climate change" to redirect anywhere. bd2412T 11:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
My apologies. I will focus on studying this right now, please stand by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, indeed I screwed up. I was working from this diff and even though I knew people were giving closely nuanced answers with finely split hairs and knew I had to pay extra attention I failed in this case. Thank you for keeping me honest! I'll fix it, and ask you to review again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
>>whew!<< again, thanks for catching my error and calling it to my attention! Have a great day, and I hope you join the discussion that happens next, because I'm sure there will be one. It'd be nice if we had a breather, though. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, there's no need to create talk pages solely with {{WP Disambiguation}} (and it's actually preferable not to). You can see the discussions linked in that template's documentation. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm surprised to learn that - I only started adding them because I noticed them sporadically being created on my watchlist. bd2412T 11:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Retargeted to Mariner (disambiguation), as it should have been in the first place. Cheers! bd2412T 22:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy:, thanks. Do these need some kind of reference? Our previous DYK collections for Portal:Law have a section collecting information on the original DYK publication date. Also, please note that since consensus has been reached to merge Portal:English law into Portal:Law, we will be looking at the DYK collections for the portal to be merged to see if there is anything usable there. Cheers! bd2412T 14:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
All self done by tags that the DYK project does...they keep the sub pages for all topics Wikipedia:Recent additions.--Moxy🍁 14:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
There is also ...{{Transclude selected current events|Law|days=60|dates=mdy| max=5}}
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Ali Rahbari, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell I only moved that content to draft space pursuant to a discussion closure. I have no interest beyond that. bd2412T 00:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
A new biography was written under the title of the redirect BD2412 auto-created, by Mani Esmaili (talk·contribs), now checkuser blocked. This new page was draftified by User:Discospinster for being undersourced. It was undersourced, but not speediable. It has now about to be deleted in draftspace. These draftifications appear to be functioning as 6-month duration backdoor PRODs. I've been uneasy about this draftification-G13 process, but it seems to be working reasonably. The article would surely have been deleted at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
Getting the queue to 0
There are now 805 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
Tools
It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
Second set of eyes
Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
Hello, I was looking at why this article was denied. I see that it was denied on notability but was also confused as other people on this team have their own page despite being "less notable." Is there any way you could clarify this distinction? Thanks :)
If you can point out to me which other people on those team have articles, I will be glad to nominate them for deletion. The requirements of WP:BASEBALL/N are pretty stringent. bd2412T 17:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Can I have a favor? If you can improve this article, please do so. There is multiple comic book character articles being deleted. I personally think this should be saved either by merge or keep entirely. If you are a good enough source provider that I was thinking you are, help if you want to! BTW I need to point (sadly) out that I am trying to not force you to vote per WP:Canvass OBVIOUSLY. I don’t want to get in trouble with that. Jhenderson777 18:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't have any additional sources or insights to add to the article, but I agree that it should be kept. I don't have any inclination against counting "Listicles" generated by reliable sources as sources for notability. bd2412T 18:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I think you put your comment in the wrong section. I'd fix it but I'm on mobile and would probably just make things worse. Wug·a·po·des 00:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Done, thanks - good catch. bd2412T 00:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Replying here because you forgot to sign your comment on my talk page...
I noticed on JzG's talk page, that the cat had been repeatedly deleted and salted, and looking at the CfD discussion, it looks like it was added erroneously, or in a manner that was unwanted, by editors. Thus, I thought I'd do some wiki cleanup. We shouldn't leave pages tagged with deleted cats, I'd think, no?
Cheers,
--Doug MehusT·C 18:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Signature fixed. The red link is an inside joke, because it puts the page in a self-described nonexistent category. You might want to check with people before you set out on a task involving their talk pages. Cheers! bd2412T 18:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
BD2412, Thank you! Indeed, that's the problem with inside jokes sometimes. At any rate, I reverted the 15 of the 19 edits I'd made (4 editors reverted them already), and apologized here. I've opened it up to let one editor trout me, if they wish. Thanks again! Doug MehusT·C 19:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
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) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm taking it upon myself to try to moderate a discussion among Portal power users with the intention of creating a draft guideline for Portals, and I'd like to invite you to join this discussion. If you're interested, please join the discussion at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| [confess] || 02:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Good, thank you. BD2412T 12:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish military interventions in Syria 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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I have replied there, thanks. BD2412T 12:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
May you please change Michael Douglas to a semi protected because there is a lot of vandalism on the page. Thanks. The4lines (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)The4lines
This is the first place I linked this to. But I figured if you need a spot for all these drafts go why not create this? What do you think? Not even close to done though. Will require patience. Jhenderson777 04:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking maybe a table for characters with multiple film appearances to show which characters showed up across which films. See, for example, the table at List of The Fast and the Furious characters. BD2412T 04:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Sounds nice. You are free to do that. As long as it's not too similar or redundant to this. Jhenderson777 05:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
What I have in mind would be character-centric rather than film (or actor)-centric, dispensing with most one-appearance characters and minor characters. Like the Fast and Furious list, I would also color-code the type of appearance (main, cameo, archival, photo, etc.). BD2412T 05:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I am curious to see what it looks like. You should do this while I focus on adding each new entry. The main reason why I showed you this is I thought you could be a big help in speeding up the process. Also you don't fancruft articles too. That's a plus! Jhenderson777 05:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
It may take me a while to get to this, as I am currently being drawn into other drama (see below). Cheers! BD2412T 22:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I welcome you whenever you are ready. How’s it looking so far? Jhenderson777 23:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
So far I haven't gotten into it, but I will. BD2412T 03:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@ToThAc:, how exactly am I "involved" in this, beyond having participated in a handful of portal-related MfD's? I have been on neither the giving or the receiving end of the conduct complained of. BD2412T 22:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
See the relevant discussion here. ToThAc (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I have voted. Cheers! BD2412T 18:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I feel so awkward about having to ask this, but I was granted this user right temporarily by Kudpung. I used it quite a bit, but then I took a wikibreak when it was set to expire. Could you re-grant it to me? I'm incredibly bored rn and want to review some pages while patrolling for vandalism. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 03:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Done. Cheers! BD2412T 03:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
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.
I have nothing to add beyond the diffs and links provided in my statement. I think they speak for themselves. Cheers! BD2412T 01:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
You had stated, after the discussion here about Science of Identity Foundation that "if disruption persists, the article may be edit-protected". Can you revert and edit protect or point me to the appropriate path?
The edits in question:
Samp4ngeles has made a number of edits that inappropriately 1) reintroduce 'alternate names' for the founder, an issue that had previously been settled; 2) add inflammatory material from a new tabloid reference; 3) misrepresent material from that reference in an apparent attempt to further harm the founder's reputation; and 4) include a section in the article titled 'Political activities', citing candidates who ran for office in 1976 prior to the formation of the Foundation in 1977. The implication is that the Foundation is itself involved in political activity, which would be a criminal violation of the Foundation's tax-exempt status. (The link Samp4ngeles provided for the new tabloid reference was incorrect; the proper link is https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10524/55521.) Humanengr (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The political section appears to have been removed by the same editor who introduced it. As for the rest, I would suggest taking those up on the talk page first. BD2412T 04:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I made my complaint at 02:38 UTC, with notification to the editor. (I had mistakenly sent it first to the admin who had locked the related Mike Gabbard page where this editor has also made many changes that required reversion.)
It was only at 03:50 UTC, after the editor would have been notified, that he deleted the 'Political activities' section. This is not evidence the system is working fine without edit protection. In fact it shows the opposite — that he knew he had no basis for making that addition and was not prepared to present evidence and argue why the material was appropriate for inclusion.
This editor does not raise proposed edits with supporting evidence first on the talk page. Rather, he makes a raft of edits in the article which then tend to go through multiple reversions, research burdens, and arguments usually ending with complete reversion.
So, yes, each of his edits could be handled on the talk page as they have been in the past at the expense of dozens of hours of effort. But as I said during the deletion discussion, the fact that this article is a magnet for inappropriate edits -- even if they can eventually be eliminated -- places a considerable burden on the editors who do want to comply with WP standards. Humanengr (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
There are appropriate channels for reporting disruptive behavior and requesting page protection, particularly WP:RFPP. I do not intend to engage further with this article. BD2412T 22:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Google Doodles. Since you had some involvement with the List of Google Doodles redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I have responded there, thanks. BD2412T 18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! HasteurBot (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
This was a technical creation to correct a title issue. I have no involvement beyond making that correction. BD2412T 03:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
There was a substantial consensus in the discussion that the sources and information presented in the article did not rise to the level of establishing encyclopedic notability. In particular, there is no policy making the cited award a basis for notability. BD2412T 17:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you and the need to ask questions one by one, but this may or may not lead to DRV, which award are you talking about, are you talking about, the Padma Shri ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that was the one central to the discussion. BD2412T 18:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant. The claim I made for satisifaction of WP:NACADEMIC (national professor) ... ( a national level honour) was a key point that was NEVER addressed by any delete !voter, apart from perhaps removing one of the sources (albeit passing) mentioning that from the article). The !delete voters were knocking chunks off of everything else but failed to address that key point which was the key notability point! Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Nevertheless, consensus favored deletion. BD2412T 18:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
There was no consensus on that point. It is the responsibility of the closer to take on that point. This AfD ran for 10 days with no relist; best practice would have been to have relisted requesting discussion on this critical point would it not? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
As you have noted, you can take this to DRV. BD2412T 19:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of P. B. Buckshey. 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. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, will you please consider unclosing and relisting this AfD? A no consensus close with zero relists seems to be throwing away the investment of time made by AfD participants, while relisting costs nothing and may result in consensus being established, thus making the aforementioned investment of editor time pay dividends. Thanks. – Levivich 17:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I provided my reasoning for not relisting in the close. The discussion had nearly twenty editors participating, and was evenly split. There is no realistic prospect that a relist will establish a consensus where the preceding volume of discussion failed to do this. AfDs are seven days for a reason. There is no entitlement to a relist, and frankly these should be reserved for rare and exceptional cases. BD2412T 18:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Why should relisting be reserved for rare and exceptional cases? – Levivich 18:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Seven full days is time enough to resolve most concerns about whether an article should exist. Otherwise, AfDs would be longer as a matter of course. BD2412T 18:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Seven days is time enough to resolve most concerns, but when it is, as you describe it, evenly split, then seven days is not enough time for a resolution. Since there's consensus that an evenly split, low-participation AfD should not be relisted just because of low participation, if we also don't relist evenly-split, high-participation AfDs, then what are we going to relist? In looking at the "even split" and "high participation" aspects, I think you're overlooking the canvassing concerns. In any event, there are some editors (like me) who make a habit of participating in relisted discussions, because those are the ones that most need "more editors eyes" in order to break deadlock (whereas the majority of AfDs are clear deletes or keeps that can be and are closed in seven days). I hate to say it but I think you're letting your personal views about relisting drive your decision here, and a "no consensus" close really doesn't help anybody with anything–it just kicks the can down the road. By avoiding a relist now, you're essentially guaranteeing a new nomination later, and I don't see how that's better than resolving it now. In any event, I won't bother you about it further, but I may take it to DRV or renominate the article at AfD. If I do the former I'll notify you. – Levivich 20:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The fact that after seven days an even split exists is not by itself an indicator that extending the time for discussion will yield a consensus. The concept of editors "who make a habit of participating in relisted discussions" seems a bit odd to me. It is easy enough to see whether a discussion that is in need of additional input after it has been open for five or six days. BD2412T 21:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Just wanted to tell you that moving the short description is against MOS:ORDER. Is this part of the standard fixes or something you added? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
That is part of the standard fixes. My changes were only aimed at correcting spacing around punctuation marks. BD2412T 03:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, don't remember seeing it when doing AWB runs myself and couldn't find it mentioned on wiki. Guess I'll try finding the source of it elsewhere. Thanks! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello BD2412, 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 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Right back at you! BD2412T 21:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for doing the same. Cheers! BD2412T 04:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Interstellarity (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's to hoping your holiday time is wonderful and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old. CHEERS!
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはBD2412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 02:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Rumtopf looks quite fascinating. the 55% ABV thrills me. Would love to have. Our article states that it is no longer made. Did you make it this year ? --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I've been scratching my head over this diff, which makes it look like I deleted a whole lot of unrelated stuff on the Senator Smith page and placed a redirect there instead. Is this the result of a histmerge you performed? I'm not sure how those work. Airbornemihir (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I tend to create new pages in user space, and then move them to mainspace when done. Sometimes they have collected userspace history. I will fix this by moving your creation of the redirect to Senator Smith (disambiguation). BD2412T 02:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks for the disambiguation, BTW, regardless of how it was done. Airbornemihir (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
It's my pleasure. Cheers! BD2412T 05:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Gampu (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I have replied to your email with a request that you contact me here for routine editing matters, rather than using the email system. BD2412T 14:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you deleted the article that I wrote, Garrett Coffey. Though sad to see the article go, I understand your decision and believe it was perfectly correct based on the votes. If I am able to develop the article such that it meets the standards of the other editors and their objections (at some point in the future, of course), am I precluded from creating the article again? And if not, would you have any advice in that regard? Thanks. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest that you create a draft in draftspace (at Draft:Garrett Coffey), and build it there until it is in sufficient shape to overcome the objections raised in the deletion discussion. Once you believe it is in good enough shape, you can request review. BD2412T 03:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll do that. Best regards Dflaw4 (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Already done. Cheers! BD2412T 20:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
bd2412, thank you for the work you do, and for all you’ve done over the years in an effort to build a quality encyclopedia and keep the wheels turning with the least amount of disruption!
2020!!
Out with the old, in with the new!! I'll remember 2019 like it was yesterday!
Remember, a New Year's resolution is something that goes in one year and out the other.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
