User talk:Czar/2019 Sept–Dec

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

Double Fine images

Hello! I was wondering if anything ever happened with that Double Fine employee who was looking to provide Wikipedia with free use images you mentioned here? TheAwesomeHwyh 23:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@TheAwesomeHwyh and Axem Titanium, heard back earlier this week. It's still on his radar—just needs to get through a few launches/events first! czar 02:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: Yay! TheAwesomeHwyh 03:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh cool. This one slipped my mind. I guess they were busy getting bought by Microsoft lol. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Chomsky

Hi Czar, I saw your edits on the Chomsky article and talk pages, but am rather busy the next few days. Probably won't have time to review them until Monday (US Pacific Time), and I didn't want you thinking I'm ignoring you! Thanks for the patience. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

All good and thanks for the heads up czar 05:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: Since it looks like the nomination has passed, you deserve credit for all the work you've done on the article:

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Noam Chomsky (estimated annual readership: 2,000,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Vrrajkum (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Vrrajkum (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Peer review for a fictional video game character

Howdy, I was going through the Peer Review volunteers, and I saw that you were open to review video game-related articles. I am asking if you could take a look at my Caveira article and see how I could improve it so I could nominate and get the article to Good Article status. I believe the article can do so, but the problem is I don't know if anyone wants to review it. If you don't, that's fine, but if you can, then great. Please @ me so I can know if you are or aren't able to review the article. Thanks. Micro (Talk) 00:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Replied on talk page

Rare Replay postmortem

Hey czar! Hope you're having a great Labor Day weekend. Anyway, for the next issue of the WPVG newsletter I was thinking of doing a postmortem about the Rare Replay GT project. I know you were the one who spearheaded the effort, so I wanted to ask (A) if you were interested in being interviewed and (B) who else I should contact about this. JOEBRO64 01:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hiya @TheJoebro64, yep, it was me and @Jaguar, who has since retired. Happy to chat whenever and happy Labor Day to you too! czar 01:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I've posted questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Newsletter/draft/queue#Queue_1 that you're free to answer. If anything needs clarification just let me know. JOEBRO64 19:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Anarchism

Do you have a problem if I add an Events box to Template:Anarchism? 17:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deisenbe (talk • contribs)

I'd recommend against it. As I mentioned at Template talk:Anarchism sidebar, these templates are supposed to provide overview-level understanding of the topic. If a historical event is clearly of overview interest to a regional history, it might make sense to add them to regional navboxes, but we already have history articles and categories for those purposes. czar 19:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Angolan pavilion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Angolan pavilion 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 Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Angolan pavilion

The article Angolan pavilion you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Angolan pavilion for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - computer-aided tagging

The development team is starting work on one of the last planned features for SDC v1.0, a lightweight tool to suggest depicts tags for images. I've published a project page for it, please have a look. I plan to share this page with everyone on Commons much more broadly in the coming days. The tool has been carefully designed to try to not increase any workload on Commons volunteers; for starters, it will be opt-in for auto-confirmed users only and will not generate any sort of backlog here on Commons. Additionally, the tool is highly privacy-minded for the contributors and publicly-minded for the third party being used, in this case Google. The implementation and usage notes contain more information about these and other potential concerns as a starting place. It's really important that the tool is implemented properly from the start, so feedback is welcome. Questions, comments, concerns are welcome on the talk page and I will get answers as quickly as possible as things come up. On the talk page you can also sign up to make sure you're a part of the feedback for designs and prototype testing. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

GrandPooBear

Look, if you think the title shouldn't have spaces, then fine, whatever, but do NOT revert my hours of researching sources and cleaning up the page as you did here. That is completely unnacceptable and I have reverted your vandalism. You don't own the page and get to control everything that goes on it. MARIO^Fan78 00:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Please see my edit summaries, multiple talk page threads, and pre-existing, in-text comment, which detail my revision. Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the social expectation on Wikipedia is to revert to the article's original state until your contested edit has consensus for inclusion. czar 21:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paloma Dawkins

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Paloma Dawkins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. 93.107.157.62 (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Self-managed social centres

I asked you over a month ago on the talkpage to provide sources to back up your claim that autonomous social centre had any references that could justify calling it a common name. You said nothing. Now you have reverted my name change again referring to unnamed "sources." I will repeat here what i said before that "Out of the 13 references on this article, I can find the phrase in only one source, namely Noterman & Pusey. And they are misquoting Atton. This doesn't seem a strong basis for your claim to have found a common name."

There are plenty of sources to back up my assertion that "self-managed social centre" is a better candidate for the common name such as Pusey, Casaglia, Piazza, Trapese and I honestly would find it easy to supply more, i have the books to hand. It is true that a range of terms is used in the literature and that plain old social centre is most often used, but that term needs qualifying to differentiate it from community centres, halkevleri, People's House, Working men's clubs and so on. I am starting to feel that this is pointless since when I ask you to back up your statements you tend to disappear (here and here) but it would be good to see these famous sources justifying your kneejerk disruptive editing. Mujinga (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page and as has been ongoing, as long as your messages persist in their needless condescension, you should not expect a response from me. If you want to make a case to move the page or re-evaluate its "commonly recognizable name", you can open a requested move discussion, as I already said in my edit summary, so that you can make your case for third parties to evaluate. czar 13:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Short answer: You don't actually have any sources and have resorted to wikilawyering, nice.

Longer answer: Look you can't have it both ways here. You can't own a page, immediately reverting my edits (which by the way resulted in redlinks being created) and yet also not reply to ongoing talkpage conversations. I've tried very hard to collaborate with you but that has not worked out at all. I note how across multiple pages you make wild claims, use extremely aggressive language towards me and accuse me of gaslighting without evidence, then proceed to fall back to whining about condescension so I can see it's simply a tactic you use, attacking then hiding and playing the long game, hoping the user you have attacked will lose interest.

So I'm going to give you a friendly warning here that my patience is wearing thin with your refusal to collaborate, I have disagreed with your editing many times now but I have remained civil and I would expect the same courtesy. Unfortunately it's not the first time I've seen this sort of willywaggling on wikipedia. It does sadden me however that I have now seen you drive away two people from editing, I sincerely hope that doesn't happen more generally. Please consider how your actions impact upon other editors who are working to improve wikipedia collaboratively. Mujinga (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a move discussion is standard when a title change is contested. It brings in third parties to resolve content disagreements. I literally sourced the article from scratch—I've seen the sources. If it wasn't clear, I had plenty more expansion in store for those pages and their talk page text should clarify, for any passersby, why I haven't contributed since. Drop the personal attacks and, as I've said multiple times, I'm happy to engage, but to put "whining about condescension" right next to claiming no evidence of gaslighting is exactly what I'm talking about. No one is preventing you from editing but it's well within reason for me to request not to be contacted like this. Please don't. czar 01:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Ray Turney

Hi, thanks for your note on the close for this AFD. Would you object if I restore to draftspace? BOZ (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi! If you have sources and plan to incubate it, should be fine to userfy as long as the other AfD participant concerns are addressed before the draft ever returns to mainspace. czar 12:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Understood. BOZ (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2017 Catalan general strike

The article 2017 Catalan general strike you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2017 Catalan general strike 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 Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - computer-aided tagging designs

I've published a design consultation for the computer-aided tagging tool. Please look over the page and participate on the talk page. If you haven't read over the project page, it might be helpful to do so first. The tool will hopefully be ready by the end of this month (October 2019), so timely feedback is important. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for Donkey Kong 64, a "1999 video game marked the decline of the adventure platform genre. "As ... Super Mario 64 breathed life into the 3D platforming genre", Electronic Gaming Monthly wrote, "Donkey Kong 64 sucked it all out". But you couldn't infer that from the lionizing 1999 press. Interesting enough, today's game journalists remember the game's 1999 reception as "mixed" even as Metacritic called it "universal acclaim". Reading the original reviews, almost all mentioned the nagging backtracking for collectibles, but only one reviewer (GameFan) went so far as to call it (as retrospective reviewers do) a deal breaker: "a big bloated project with not enough brilliant moments to justify the numbness ... [of] sitting through the whole thing". Indeed, as much as GameFan was an outlier among the 1999 hype men, it had its finger on the game's legacy. The game is not a "recommended" title in the overall Donkey Kong series, but as the console's top seller in the 1999 holiday season and with over two million copies shipped, the game is famous despite how it was sold."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Jet Black Stare

Could you undelete Jet Black Stare? I found non-trivial third party sources such as this and this, along with a chart entry on a major Billboard chart which was not acknowledged in the AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @TenPoundHammer, I've restored to draftspace. The sources are very similar to what was discussed at AfD so without the presence of multiple in-depth articles, I'd invite the AfD participants to take a look before mainspacing it. czar 12:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I found another significant article on them in Radio & Records magazine, which I have added to the draft. I would say there's just enough now between that, the Allmusic bio, and the Deseret News article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

tense for reception/criticism

I'm trying to figure out what tense to use when writing about the reception of a book or play. On most pages, it's done in the past tense. But quotes of reviews that use the present tense seem to stay in present tense. Would they ideally be changed to match other past tense? FA The Time Traveler's Wife uses both present and past. I'm currently inconsistent in my tenses on Melissa Leilani Larson. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU), hi! MoS recommends the present (or "historical/continuous present"). The plot section of The Time Traveler's Wife appears to be almost all in the present, yes? (If there's a part that is not, I can take a look.) So while "The Edible Complex was written for elementary school students", "The play addresses eating disorders" because it continues to exist, perhaps even after the last copy is destroyed. Or a reviewer described/characterized the play as X because the review happened in the past, but when they describe something about the play, the play's contents exist in the present. That's my understanding, at least. By the way, interesting to hear about Larson's Tagore adaptation (The Post Office), which reminded me that I've been long curious to read more about Janusz Korczak's adaptation of the same. czar 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I read about The Post Office being used to prepare children for death in concentration camps. Ideally no child would have to die under such circumstances, but it warms my heart to know Korczak stood by the orphans in his care until the bitter end.

I think I understand to use present when talking about the play, and past to refer to statements by critics. For statements from critics about the work, the statement is in the past but the description of the work is in the present. I'm not sure about using the present tense in this sentence: "Fellow Utah playwright Mahonri Stewart wrote that while Larson beautifully emphasizes the humanity of Catholic saints, the chorus of historians is "redundant."" Maybe it should be "emphasized" and "was redundant," to reflect that Larson's writing of the play was in the past? (On The Time Traveller's Wife page: "Despite appreciating the novel's premise, Amidon complained that the implications of Henry's time-traveling were poorly thought out" --in the past since it refers to the author's writing process, which already happened?) Thanks for your help. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU), hm, that's tricky. I don't know if there's a correct answer! My vote would be for "emphasized/was redundant" because what Larson-as-writer wrote in the past (unless it's Larson-as-metonym-for-the-work, which then makes sense to keep in the present). And then the second part ("was redundant") would just be for continuity with the first part. Alternatively, could recast the sentence to avoid the ambiguity.

I like past tense for the second example because it refers to the author's actions (in the historical past) rather than a historical present, in-universe aspect of the work. Open to pushback—I don't think it's cut-and-dried! czar 02:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I like the past tense better too. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Donkey Kong 64 scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Donkey Kong 64 has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 22 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 22, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Czar, "holiday season" is a phrase that not everyone understands. Was the game Nintendo's top seller for all of 1999, or last quarter of 1999, or similar? - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donkey Kong 64#Holiday season czar 02:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Restore

1. Hey Czar! It's been long, I hope you are well. Can you please take a look on the histories of these (1, 2, and 3), and there is deleted history of my work in one of these? Will you be able to restore those and do the histmerge into the current article?
2. And please move Draft:Clifford the Big Red Dog (film) to Clifford the Big Red Dog (2020 film).
3. Also restore the deleted history of Draft:Red Notice (film).
4. Another editing history lost, please restore it. Find it in 1 otherwise in 2, and do the histmerge with the current article.
5. Also these, restore history of Draft:Nimona (film), Draft:Fast & Furious 10, Draft:Micronauts (film), Draft:Dungeons & Dragons (2021 film), and Draft:Wicked (upcoming film).

Actually I have been busy in several works for some time and have been away from Wikipedia for a while and mine editing has been removed. Please don't mind. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 09:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Any update yet? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 09:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Hi, I think you saw that I'm working through them. Some are done, others were done by someone else, and the rest are complicated. Let me take a look. czar 23:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Captain Assassin!, is User talk:Motizun another account of yours? czar 01:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  No, I don't know about that. I have only one other account Rafhan Shaukat. This User talk:Motizun might want to something on me. And why would I have another account when I am always using this account and whatever I want to do I can do that from this account? I am seeing this user first time and I thinks he wants to put blame on me for all of his disrupt editing. You know, I have always contacted you if I need help in anything. And think, even if I was that user, why would I put my original account in risk by telling everyone that "I'm actually Captain Assassin!. I moved here a while ago, and I don't know why I am associated with this guy"? Everyone knows my writing style. And did you check, Motizun was a sockpuppet of User talk:Winterysteppe. I don't know why people create so much account on a single website. I created user:Rafhan Shaukat in start of my editing on Wikipedia, but I have never use that for years. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 11:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I have seen that some are done. Only these are left for restoring history, The Invisible Man (2020 film), Mortal Kombat (2021 film), and Draft:Red Notice (film). Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 12:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sounds good re: Motizun—I figured but just wanted to ask (and let you know about the claim) either way. TIM had nothing significant to restore ("upcoming film" draft had a single sentence). MK doesn't have anything of yours to restore (just Motizun's deleted edits on the draft). RN was complicated but done now! @Captain Assassin! czar 14:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Hey czar! Thanks, but left me show you where to check my editing histories for TIM and MK, I edited on both of these for at-least 5-6 months. I think it lost during the moving of drafts into new titles. But let me show you a clue. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Terry Maston AfD

I am here to ask you to reconsider your AfD closing of this afd. There is a clear non-consensus leaning toward keep. A WP:NOCONSENSUS should not be closed as a delete. Editors spend a lot of time researching and participating. Lightburst (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst, thanks for your note. As I remarked in the closure, my assessment is that the "delete" rationale carried the consensus. I think a "no consensus" closure would be incorrect here, as it would only be based on counting !votes when AfD consensus is not based on counts. czar 17:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for the reply. I of course disagree. I will ask for a deletion review. Lightburst (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Terry Maston. 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. Lightburst (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Social democracy's IP

Hi, could you please help with the IP? I explained you more about it here. The IP clearly evaded the block, so why was nothing done about it? I wish something would have been done in my case too, so I would have been told that I could still use my talk page and to make my appeal there, but that didn't happened and I thought it was fine and that I would notify my IPs and everything; well, you know the story. Now this happened. I suspect that's the IP (the IP block also included the account creation block; and if that's really the IP, it violated that one too). The IP stopped editing or replying me and now suddenly there's this user, created seemingly on 23 November 2019, who supported the IP's edits. I'm afraid it's a sockpuppet of the IP, who isn't showing any good faith anymore, despite me explaining it to self-revert and notify the block evasion (why didn't anyone replied me here yet?--Davide King (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This is further proof Symes2017 is the blocked IP as the IP told me about "nominat[ing] this article for a peer review" here.--Davide King (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Davide King, I left replies on Talk:Social democracy, your talk page, and Symes2017's talk page. I'll watch the latter for replies. This is a new user so please take care not to barrage them with diffs and policies. The intent should be to welcome them into editing and (as you definitely know) our rules can be a bit arcane to newcomers, so it's on us to help. I'm giving Symes2017 a chance to explain their edits and work this out, but if that fails, yes, this can go to WP:SPI (escalation as a last resort). czar 18:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I have just seen and I thank you for it. Thank you also for reminding me that, but I believe there's more than enough evidence to be suspect and at least bring a sockpuppet case. A newly created account reverting my edit and agreeing with the IP, then proposing the article for peer review just like the IP told me and even edit same pages such as Social democracy and Gary Null.--Davide King (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

editToken

Hello Czar,

Your script User:Czar/delsort+findvgsources.js is no longer functional because it attempts to get an editToken from mw.user.tokens. The script should instead get a csrfToken. editTokens were removed from mw.user.tokens on October 3, 2019 at Phabricator during this edit as they were redundant to csrfTokens.– BrandonXLF (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Aardwolf deletion

Hello just asking for you to consider withdrawing your deletion request for my article. Since you flagged it I added nine new sources, all of which I believe are more reliable than what was there previously. The notability of the game has also greatly been expanded upon. As the article stands now there is no reason for it to be deleted. Thank you. Bluedude588 (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hello. Question about relevancy and notability on articles. There are a near infinite amount of articles on Wikipedia that are stubs with no notability. Moti Island and Tychów Nowy are two good examples. They both have one source each and are completely irrelevant. What makes them okay and my Aardwolf article not? Or are they not okay and we should flag them for deletion? I'd say there is about a 50% chance that hitting the random article button will bring up an article that is much worse than mine. I'm trying to learn about the logic beyond Wikipedia, and it still just doesn't make sense. It sorta feels like its an elite club where the established members just sorta get to enforce the rules when they decide to. Hopefully you can help clear it up. Thanks! Bluedude588 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hiya @Bluedude588, looks like you got an answer at the Teahouse so I'll just add that yes, Wikipedia's coverage is uneven, as any volunteer project that sets out to write an encyclopedia must be. In general, when you see other articles with poor sourcing, the best course of action is first to improve the sourcing (or try) and if that fails, try any alternative to deletion, keeping outright deletion as a last resort. In the case of this discussion, I linked to the prior discussions about sourcing and all of the relevant policy explanations. As for feeling that enforcement is arbitrary, I can appreciate how it might feel that way, given how much work there is to be done, but I think you'll come to find through editing that there is a reasonable, consensus-based reason for why everything on Wikipedia is the way that it is, one article at a time. In this case, we can't do justice to this MUD if all that we can definitively say is a few sentences based on fractions of articles. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source—it summarizes secondary sources. What needs to be written about Aardwolf isn't an encyclopedia article but really any reputable and independent press article at all. czar 17:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I've been reading through Wikipedia's policies on notability and such, and I think I understand it better now. Appreciate it. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

"AutoMod" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect AutoMod. Since you had some involvement with the AutoMod redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Lordtobi (✉) 13:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Merc (MUD)

I've redirect Merc (MUD), an article you prodded, to AVATAR (MUD) because the former played a significant part in the latter's development. If you object (given the PROD rationale) you can send it to WP:RFD. ミラP 16:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if I object but I don't think it's a great fit. czar 17:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1918 Wisła Kraków season

There were 3 other articles bundled which you appear to have forgotten to delete... GiantSnowman 12:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, apologies. I think it was a script error but either way, I missed it. Appears to be resolved now. Thanks czar 18:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! GiantSnowman 07:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Chas. Caltrop and Thatjakelad

I redirect you here, here and here. Both users seems to be pushing a Marxist–Leninist POV and have been engaged in disrupting beahvior; in the case of Chas. Caltrop, edit warring and using misleading, if not outright fasle, edit summaries; or after being reverted, enganging in edit war by reverting to its favorite version and accusing the other of engaging in edit war or falsely making claims about "harrasment"; or edited/deleted other users' comments/warning about their disrupting beahvior, not learning from it and instead continuining to do the same. Others have lamented about this and you can see in the links. It's getting really frustrating.--Davide King (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Davide King, I left a warning on Chas's talk page about editing the content of others' comments. For the content stuff, follow WP:BRD and take edits to talk page for consensus if challenged. For addressing habitual behavior, dispassionately show the editor their diffs and request a course of action. If ignored, take those diffs to WP:ANI, but be warned that escalation can have unpredictable results. (I'd personally recommend that you avoid ANI whenever possible, especially given your recent reinstatement.) I could leave another note re: misleading edit summaries, but this appears to have been discussed previously on that editor's talk page. Have you reached out to the editors mentioned on Chas's talk page who have brought this conduct to ANI in years past? Might want to start there, briefly sharing diffs with them that show the editor's tendentious editing persisting after warnings. I don't frequent ANI so regulars will be more helpful in structuring a case. Otherwise, I'd focus on content editing (perhaps on other articles) and let others attend to editor behavior while you still get your bearings. I see how those edits are frustrating but extract yourself before letting them get under your skin. czar 11:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• @Davide King: I think that we need RfC on user Chas. Caltrop's actions in the article Leninism, etc.

The situation is complicated by the fact that Chas. Caltrop’s wrong position was supported by the user MarnetteD (see her talk page).

Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Czar talk contribs moved page America (Maurizio Cattelan) to America (Cattelan) ‎(Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Visual_arts#Article_titles)

How do you think the policy justifies this move? As the author of most of it (with consensus obtained), I would have thought it suggests the former title was better, especially given how completely unhelpful the work's title is, & how little known Cattelan is. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If the guideline says anything about preferring the artist's full name instead of the surname as the disambiguator, I don't see it. In terms of useful titles, unless it's going to be renamed something descriptive, its two most common search terms are in the title and I personally don't think adding the artist's first name makes it any more discoverable or understandable. czar 04:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

100,000 edits

	100,000 Edit Star
	Six digits! I saw a comment of yours on a talk page and noticed that you just crossed the 100,000 edit milestone. Thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 19:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm adding my congrats to you on your 100,000th edit Czar! You are now entitled to place the 100,000 Edit Star that Newslinger posted on your bling page! or you could choose to display the {{User 100,000 edits}} user box. Or both! Many thanks for all your work at the 'pedia! Cheers, — MarnetteD|Talk 19:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Newslinger and MarnetteD, thank you! czar 22:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Czar, my congratulations! You do the useful work. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Гармонический Мир, appreciated! czar 21:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

78.99.168.120 (Symes2017?)

Hi, could you please tell me your thoughts about 78.99.168.120's edits? I could be wrong and I wish I am, but I'm afraid that it's Symes2017 again. Its editing pattern seems similar, but my main issue is that the IP literally reverted Social democracy to its favorite version (including all of Symes2017's favorite title sections, despite the fact a third opinion by PrimalBlueWolf which seemed to support my arguments and version which already included many of Symes2017 edits that I have been more than accomodating to add when they really did improve the article anyway, so it's not like I only kept mines). I'm reverting that, but it's frustrating. If it's really Symes2017, and I wouldn't be surprised since its history of sockpuppeting, I even already told here not to use any IPs so it's not like it wasn't warned again this time. Again, I hope I'm wrong, but let me know if a check may be helpful.--Davide King (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I just saw now that it was also already noted on 16 December 2019, so I'm not the only one who noticed that pattern.--Davide King (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Davide King, yep, now that that sockpuppet investigation (SPI) is open, if you have behavioral evidence that an editor is creating multiple accounts, that would be the place to take it so the case history stays in one place. (Just keep it brief and let the diffs do the talking.) czar 15:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert

Hey Czar! Please revert the deleted history of Draft:Scarface (upcoming film). Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 21:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ refunded czar 21:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks man. And are there any chances for me to get admin rights, should I apply or not? (Just need opinion) --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 21:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Also need revert for the Draft:Uncharted (film). --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 21:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ refunded There are lots of questions within the admin question, e.g., what you would be using it for and whether you have done anything untrustworthy in the eyes of the community. Normally the admin tools accompany a desire to work on a specific admin queue. Matters less what I think—I don't participate in RfA or the behavioral side of WP so my analysis of your editing history would be anemic at best. But Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll is filled with editors who would be happy to give feedback. Read through the materials on WP:RFA and see what you think? czar 22:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I should add that ORFA is definitely going to mention your recent break. They like seeing consistent activity. I personally don't think that's a worthwhile indicator, but yeah I stay away from this part of the project. czar 22:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I understand and I already knew that admin-ship requires past activity and consistency, which I lack in the near past. I was just curious man. Honestly I like the way I am doing all the contributions. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 22:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Charm City Kings

Hi Czar--could you do a histmerge of Charm City Kings and Twelve (upcoming film), which appear to be the same project? Thanks! NathanielTheBold (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@NathanielTheBold, ✓ done! czar 02:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well C. MarnetteD|Talk 04:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject interviews

Suggesting WikiProject Equine, WikiProject Rodeo, WikiProject Horse racing frequent contributors Dawnleelynn and Montanabw. It might be framed as a followup to this 2012 WikiProject report. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Puddleglum2.0 § Signpost WPR suggestion

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas, Czar! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mr. Robot

Template:Mr. Robot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

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Czar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 02:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

	Merry Christmas Czar
	Hi Czar, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Restoring citation info

Apologies for reverting the cite info on Media bias against Bernie Sanders. Is there an easy way to restore the citation info? I'm not familiar with mass-editing citations. Does each cite have to be restore manually? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans, the archive URLs were by script so that's easy (if it's even necessary—at least we know they're archived in some form now). The unifying of citations was manual and I had also made some edits re: the NYT public editor so I'll have to take a look later if you have no easy way of restoring that section, i.e., I'm not sure what other objectionable changes were happening in those paragraphs. czar 22:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to explain: An older stable version of the article was restored per agreement most editors on the page, but in doing so, your constructive cite edits were lost. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Czar!

Happy New Year!

Czar,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-Nahal^(T) 23:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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