User talk:Steve2011

User talk:December21st2012Freak

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

That means you Coldplay Expert! User:December21st2012Freak/Talkheader

---

Below is an ad. The user may or may not have any affiliation whatsoever with the ad's subject.

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #165

July 2009 Messages

December 21st, 2012

On December 21st, 2012, The Sun will align with the center of the galaxy, causing the earth to wobble, causing tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and more. An asteroid might hit earth. The earth might end. Do you wikipedians rather go to another earthlike world rather then staying on earth? --December21st2012Freak (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the earth will line up with the sun and there may be a small amount more chaos than usual but I don't believe that the world will end. If an asteroid were to come close to earth, they probably will have developed technology that will repel the asteroid. That theory you believe is full of HOOEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Sorry if I was a little impolite. In short, don't worry about that stuff.) Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, On April 13-14, 2036; Asteroid Apophis, the size of a small mountain, will hit Earth. December21st2012Freak (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They probably will have tech that repels asteroids then too (Don't use the talkback template either, I have this on my watchlist). Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious, if the world were to end on 12/21/2012, wouldnt the press or the gov'ts be all over this and prep? PS... thats my birthday :O Tdinatale (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The World might end on that date according to here. December21st2012Freak , (The world will end in 2012...) 23:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're gunna be screwed from an exploding population and/or global warming anyways.... I plan on moving someplace tropical, learning spanish fluently and growing my own food for that matter. But I question.. the sun being blocked out for 40 years? meh.... Tdinatale (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC) .. Even if it does happen, the great dying occurred and the Cretaceous–Tertiary_extinction_event occured.. historically speaking, it didnt kill everything. Tdinatale (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the 2036 asteroid you were talking about has a low chance of an Earth impact. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/apr/HQ_08103_student_asteroid_calculations.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdinatale (talk • contribs) 01:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

But in 2029, Asteroid Apophis will pass very close to the Earth and possibly hit it. December21st2012Freak , (The world will end in 2012...) 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but I wouldn't quit my day job just yet. lolTdinatale (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You do know that the sun earth and the centre of the galaxy lines up every year on December 21 right???? Because it does. Not so special is it happens every year--Fire 55 (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow i'm born in December whoop whoop. but the world won't explode hopefully —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lori07 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Earth? Earth? What the hell's that supposed to mean? There's no such thing as earth. Stop making up gibberish, you infantile fools, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Earth is the planet we live on. December21st2012Freak , (talk to me, or else...) 23:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Bertrand

I have declined your CSD of Jennifer Bertrand (originally at Jennifer bertrand) as the notability has been claimed. She is the host of her own show and a winner in a reality TV series, which establishes her notability. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

M. Moses

u might want to reconsider your speedy deletion tagging. --L I C 03:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Steve2011. You have new messages at Barista Girl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barista Girl (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of warnings

Hello and thank you for your work in reverting vandals. However, the edit you made here is actually true: Users may remove warnings if they'd like, hence it is a way of showing that he/she read the warning. ZooFari 00:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009 messages

What I don't like

My page being edited by a guy who believes the world is going to end in 2012. If you ever do it again, I'll make your world end a bit sooner. With kind regards, 62.235.138.10 (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is why I know the world will end in 2012, see this video. December21st2012Freak (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is why I know it won't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfp7FbsnsbU 62.235.138.10 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you were a bit too harsh

Hi. I think you were a bit harsh issuing that vandalism notice. This edit was not vandalism for say but maybe a name correction or a bad edit (which is not vandalism). Just to let you know. FireCrystal (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a second instance: this reverted edit on the Cold Spring Tavern article was not vandalism but a helpful correction to an incorrectly spelled name. :) Please remember (and maybe re-read) these guidelines: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just concerned that you were mislabeling it vandalism when it could be reverted to the last good edit (and not marked as vandalism). Only people that are knowledgeable about the person would know the correct spelling of the person's name and would then call it vandalism. So identifying something like that as vandalism when it may be a correction is pretty much in bad faith. Why are you saying that I should read those two policies? I respect them both. Could you please explain specifically what I done? I was, in no way, in bad faith here. Also, with new users I try to actually help them when I can and I respect them because I was new to Wikipedia once just like everyone else. I'm sorry if I misunderstood after all this. No worries. FireCrystal (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

FireCrystal, it seems as if I confused you, and I'm sorry for that! My comment was intended to be aimed at December21st2012Freak. I don't think you did anything wrong; I was just noticing a separate instance of mislabeled vandalism and decided to add my note to the similar section that you had started. (In the case that I'm discussing, the misspelling could be checked by visiting the reference.) Dreamyshade (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, what's funny is I did not even know you were someone else entirely than this user until now so I feel pretty stupid. It all makes sense to me now. I was too fast to respond. So no problems. :) FireCrystal (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's OK! I understand. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Steve2011. You have new messages at 98.248.32.178's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User talk:98.248.32.178

Users are allowed to remove comments from their own talk page, see WP:UP#CMT. While there may be edit warring by the user elsewhere (I haven't looked), removing posts and warnings from their own talk page doesn't qualify for that. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• And actually, the IP was trying to AFD the article, not realising that they couldn't. It wasn't even vandalism. Black Kite 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please look again

The edit which you characterized as vandalism [1] was a good- faith attempt to revert what appears to be spamming [2]. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Please be more careful in reverting other editors edits. If their edits aren't simple vandalism, then you really shouldn't be reverting them and warning them with twinkle. Several of your reverts are of edits which could possibly be, or even likely are, in good faith. Take a look at WP:VAND and make sure that the content you are reverting meets that description before doing so. Prodego ^talk 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Sample

Thanks for the Condescension. But no, the edit wasn't a mistake, and maybe if you actually took the time to compare histories you'd realize that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.236.2 (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :)

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! [midnight comet] [talk] 19:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You're Welcome :) December21st2012Freak (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: William Edwin Rudge

Hello December21st2012Freak, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of William Edwin Rudge - a page you tagged - because: Not unambiguously promotional. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

...for the barnstar. It'll look good on my shelf. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You're Welcome. December21st2012Freak (talk • contribs) 02:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't

Please don't edit another user's talk page such as you did here. This is especially the case when the user has placed a request for unblock at the talk page. Thanks.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 03:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Luke adam hudson

I have removed the comment that you left to User:Luke adam hudson on my talk page as I think it would best in this situation to leave him alone and I do not think your comment was helping the situation. I also removed your {{talkback}} from his talk page as the comment no longer exists on my talk page. Normal use of the {{talkback}} template is to indicate a comment left for an editor on your own talk page, not somebody else's. While I can not stop you from leaving another comment on his talk page, I strongly suggest that you do not as I don't think it is necessary. Continuing to argue with him will not help matters. I have already warned him that he may be blocked if he continues to post his "article". I don't think leaving him another warning is necessary since he has done no further edits. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For the help here. Regards Tiderolls 00:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're Welcome. December21st2012Freak (talk • contribs) 00:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I didn't quite get far enough back. :) Dureo (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You're Welcome. December21st2012Freak (talk • contribs) 02:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagging for speedy deletion

Hi there. I noticed you tagged Tanario King with the {{copyvio}} template. Please remember that the template is for those cases, where copyright violation is unclear. If it's evident as in this case, use {{db-copyvio}} instead which will place it in the category to speedy delete it. Regards SoWhy 07:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha

I deserve a right trouting for this. Soz :P it was an automatic reflex. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

To our newest Rollbacker

I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding {{Rollback}} and {{User rollback}} to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering! wadester16 01:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, do not ever do this --O extremenho (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting the page blank on my talk page I hereby award you The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Practical Joke

I just love your practical joke I clicked on that link ,found a strange page (I thought it was some kinda mistake)I went to my talk oage and checked out it's history That's when I realised it was a joke :))--Notedgrant (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox

I'm confused over the point of this as the sandbox is not going to be deleted and why bother to warn a user, and one that hasn't edited since May, that the page is about to be deleted. While a nonsense warning is unlikely to bother an experienced user it may upset a new user. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Trouted

LOL! I hope I didn't cause any trouble. The sandbox was the best place I could think of to test out Twinkle. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Interested in contributing to a discussion?

Talk:2012_millenarianism#Formal_discussion_on_page_name Read the arguments from all sides here and tell me what you think... Shii (tock) 15:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. December21st2012Freak , (The world will end in 2012...) 16:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion nomination

Do you actually mean to nominate the Sandbox for deletion (meaning that there wouldn't be a Sandbox any more), or are you just testing something? If it's a serious nomination, please explain the reason for it or withdraw it, because honestly this isn't going to happen. If you were just testing something out, please let us know so we can delete the MfD. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

September 2009 messages

speedy deletion of Who settled in wilmington after the native americans?

Plip!

• You tagged this as blatant advertising. What was it advertising? I deleted it anyway because it was nonsense, but I would ask you to please slow it down and try to be more accurate when tagging for speedy deletion. Thanks--Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping to revert all of that vandalism on my userpage. It's amazing that I didn't have to revert any of it because you and a few other people kept beating me to it. --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are Welcome. December21st2012Freak , (The world will end in 2012...) 23:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?

Why did you revert my edit on Black Eyed Peas the link didn't work so I fixed it. --72.129.18.152 (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:75.47.128.26

I'm very confused. How are this user's edits vandalism?...and why are you edit warring over the warning? --Onorem♠Dil 01:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the sandbox history, I'll agree that it's not good use of the sandbox to simply add the same information over and over, but I wouldn't call it vandalism...and a templated warning does little to let them know what's wrong with their edits. --Onorem♠Dil 01:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Hi there! You recently reported an IP at AIV with the following rationale.

• 75.47.128.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - On Wikipedia:Sandbox;. User keeps adding the same information on Wikipedia:Sandbox and not letting people edit it. December21st2012Freak , (Wanna Chat?) 01:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP had not been sufficiently warned, please make sure you are familiar with the criteria for blocking vandals. Ask me any questions if you have them. ceranthor 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP was edit warring earlier and keeps adding the same text on the Wikipedia Sandbox. And, When I was warning him, he erased the warnings of his page. December21st2012Freak , (Wanna Chat?) 01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I assumed that the admin who declined your report had checked out the page history. My apologies, I'll contact him/her immediately. ceranthor 02:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My error entirely, and I apologize. I am trying to multi-task, and should have been more thorough and either made time to check history, or not commented at all. I am sorry for any delay regarding this due to my insufficient diligence. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

New message bar

Hi, can you please remove the new messages bar on your userpage per WP:SMI? Regards, Javért  |  ^Talk 19:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done December21st2012Freak , (Wanna Chat?) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. :) Regards, Javért  |  ^Talk 19:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You got me

As a newcomer to editing (though I am a long-time user) you got me pretty good with the "you have been banned from editing for vandalism" notice in the sandbox.--Nyctc7 (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SB

Please don't do things like this. Regards, Javért ^❤ 03:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It was not really protected at all... December21st2012Freak , (?!?) 03:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

And it cracked me up. Abce2|This isnot a test 03:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that, but pretending to be an admin is generally frowned upon. Regards, Javért ^❤ 03:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm...it was meant as a humorous thing.Abce2|This isnot a test 03:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

And, I also have this on my userpage,

This user acts like an administrator on the English Wikipedia but really isn't one.

December21st2012Freak , (?!?) 03:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...

Why are you edit warring on the sandbox?Abce2|This isnot a test 19:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, or reverting other people's edits. December21st2012Freak , (?!?) 19:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my talk page.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're Welcome. December21st2012Freak , (?!?) 21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Based on your username. What's happening on December 21st 2012?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11iCmzGnOI8 Regards, December21st2012Freak , (?!?) 23:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll look at it after I've finished some statistical work.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OMG, we are running out of time.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 04:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I watched it again. In ways, it is a very good video. Cheers.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 07:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Best Barnstar

		The Lord Spongefrog, Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Czar of Kasan and Astrakhan, Czar of Poland, Czar of Siberia, Czar of the Tauric Chersonese, Seignior of Pskov, Prince of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volkynia, Podolia, and Finland, Prince of Esthonia, Livonia, Courland and Semigallia, of Bialystok, Karelia, Sougria, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria and many other countries; Lord and Sovereign Prince of the territory of Nijni-Novgorod, Tchemigoff, Riazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Jaroslavl, Bielozersk, Oudoria, Obdoria, Kondinia, Vitepsk, and of Mstislaf, Governor of the Hyperborean Regions, Lord of the countries of Iveria, Kartalinia, Grouzinia, Kabardinia, and Armenia, Hereditary Lord and Suzerain of the Scherkess princes, of those of the mountains, and of others; heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, Dittmarsen and Oldenburg Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for making it in the first place and for actually takeing me seriouslly.--Coldplay Expert 23:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Lord Spongefrog is not be a-authorizin' this gildet' template in his name. Walk t' plank, ye misguided vagabonds, and to Davy Jones' locker! Lord Spongefrog, (I be t' Czar o' all Russias!) 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

it was in fact a productive edit - someone used a terrible translation service to attempt to add information that was not originally in english and that they did not take the time to format into anything even close to proper language. it was therefore not appropriate to be included in the article.

a minor concern with your sig

I'm sure it's only intended as light-hearted humor, but I'm not sure it's such a good idea for someone leaving vandalism and speedy deletion notices to have "talk to me or else" in their signature. New users who are not so familiar with how things work here might actually take that seriously. In the interest of avoiding biting the newcomers, you may want to reconsider. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it to this: December21st2012Freak , (chat) 01:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I hesitated to l even leave that message because some users can get awfully huffy about such things. I went to get you a barnstar to thank you for your understanding, but as I live in Alaska, I had some trouble and unfortunately your barnstar was eaten by a bear. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats pretty funny!--Coldplay Expert 00:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009 messages

New Section

I am about to delete one of your userboxes.--Daniel L. Barth (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

how do you get the little button that shows what your doing on you user/talk page? (right now it says huggleing)--Coldplay Expert 01:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Netalarmtalk 20:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Welcome. December21st2012Freak ^chat 21:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey i did it too!--Coldplay Expert 21:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the two reverts on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Welcome. December21st2012Freak ^chat 13:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hershey bar revert

The 5 pound Hershey bar is available in their Singapore store, but since Hershey shut down its web sales you can't order it from them. The anon you reverted was trying to do a good deed. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hershey_bar&action=historysubmit&diff=308963887&oldid=308963838 You didn't check that the anon's info was accurate - you reverted the article to inaccurate. - 173.19.201.156 (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit was from a long time ago. December21st2012Freak ^chat 19:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

2012 Link

You might want to give this a read. Even the Mayans say, what 98% of most believe, that the 2012 thing is just there to scare the ever-living-bejesus outta of people. Just a thought. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This will make D212012F very mad but I think that this whole thing about 2012 is just like Y2K.--Coldplay Expert 01:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing warnings...

Hi, I tried to update some information on here but was given warnings...I'm not quite sure why as the editing was actually to do with myself!

Moonmonkey31 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no warnings on your talk page, it is empty. December21st2012Freak ^chat 23:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Userboxen

This concerns me. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 00:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I belive that D212012F made that only for fun. Not to say that he endorces vandals in any way. But what do I know? im just a Talk page wacher.--Coldplay Expert 01:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, it's a bit DENYish. It promotes and grants recognition of the completely wrong type of behaviour expected by fellow Wikipedians. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Reverted Edit

That user posted vandalism, which I reverted and warned him of. Why did you post that revert warning on my page, then remove it? --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 22:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was non needed warning on his talk page, and, I saw that you were an experienced editor, Huggle gave you a warning, and I reverted on your talk page. December21st2012Freak ^chat 22:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's cool. Thanks for your efforts, and take care! --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 23:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Anti-Vandalism Barnstar For all your efforts to keep the wiki clean, I hereby award you the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Enjoy! --[midnight comet] [talk] 01:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, and, when will you make me WOTD? December21st2012Freak ^chat 01:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem! You deserve it. About WOTD - WOTD is done; next week I'm going to start a new award program; a spinoff of WOTD. It will feature some users who received WOTD in the past and some users who haven't received it at all. --[midnight comet] [talk] 02:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Just wanted to justify you, do you like testing in the user warning sandbox as a hobby. Coz it looks like that you're using the talk page very frequently.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 03:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, testing obscure warnings that you probably will never use is not really that exciting. If in doubt, give 'em the standard {{uw-vandalism1}}.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 12:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I award you...

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Pepperpiggle, award December21st2012Freak the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for all the Huggling you did on User talk:Wolfkeeper. I tried to revert the vandalism too, but you beat me to it every time. Keep reverting! *Pepperpiggle**Sign!* 21:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. December21st2012Freak ^chat 22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

cool

I just want to say that your user page is alswome, and I was worndreing if you could sign my gustbook. regards--Orangesodakid 00:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

just to show how cool I think your user page is, here is a barnstar

		The Excellent User Page Award
		for having a excellent user page (that was kind of redundent) regards. --Orangesodakid 00:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

regards --Orangesodakid 00:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

TS

"Thankyou for participating!"

Hello Steve2011. Thankyou for participating in my recent RfA. I appreciate it. As you know, it failed (probably due to my own interference), but...there's always next year, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Del Rosa

Thanks for fixing my edit to Del Rosa, San Bernardino, California. House1090 (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Welcome. December21st2012Freak ^{Halloween is coming} 23:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

UBX links removed

I've removed 2 links to your userboxes from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Vandalism and /Misc. This & This If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. Netalarmtalk 23:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

another barnstar

for signing my user page here is a barnstar (BARNSTAR)

The Orangesodakid Guestbook Page Barnstar

---

This user has signed orangesodakid's signature page.

regards --Orangesodakid 23:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation! We are a group of editors who work together on the Articles for creation and Images for upload pages.

A few tips that you might find helpful:

• Please take time to fully read the reviewers' instructions before reviewing submissions.
• The project's discussion board is the best place to ask for help or advice. You might like to watchlist this page, and you are encouraged to take part in any discussion that comes up.
• Alternatively you may like to contact one of our experienced members for help. They are: User talk:Steve2011/header

AfC unreviewed draft statistics as of January 06, 2025

Bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus against option 1 and no consensus for options 3 or 4. The former was roundly rejected, and the latter two received minimal support. Option 2 received about 7 !votes and option 5 around 10 !votes. The main arguments in favor of option 5 were the stigma of being flagged by a bot and the fact that reviewers sometimes make mistakes, but editors in favor of option 2 pointed out that some editors see value in having such a list, that the list wouldn't alert the submitter, and that being on the list does nothing to indicate whether the original review was correct. Thus, I find a rough consensus for option 2. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Are there any bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted? Ideally they would be able to autoreject or at least put them on a list. It might be possible to look at the previous reason for rejection, e.g. not meeting GNG, and if no new refs are added it is highly unlikely it will pass this time. Polygnotus (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

No, and if I remember correctly we decided not to have any sort of bot that does this. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think having a bot that does this would be a bad idea. One poor decline could easily lead to a series of them. -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, given @Ca's comment below, my comment is about putting them on a list. (Obviously, I think an autoreject bot would be even worse.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, bad idea. Sometimes it's reasonable to resubmit without changes if the decline was incorrect or the submitter has clarified something. C F A 💬 16:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

How about a bot that could add a Comment to the submission to let the submitter know that the submission has not changed and that they could continue working on it? Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree having any kind of auto-decline bot is a bad idea. However, simply putting them in a list, like this one, sounds reasonable. It would be useful for finding easy declines/accepts, provided that the reviewers check the circumstances behind the resubmission. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• I like the idea of a bot that can at least note the absence of material change to a resubmitted article. BD2412 T 21:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  @BD2412: Let's say software detects that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted. What should it do? Message the submitter? Stick a template on the submission? Stick it on a list similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Submissions#List:_Copyvios? Notify the previous reviewer? Something else? You can choose more than one option. Polygnotus (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Notify the submitter and put a note on the submission to the effect that the submission was previously rejected, and that the reasons for the previous rejection should be reviewed prior to acceptance of the submission. Creating a list of little-changed re-submissions is also not a bad idea. BD2412 T 14:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

• Option 1: Yes. The bot should automatically reject decline any such submissions.
• Option 2: Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list, similar to the list of possible copyvios.
• Option 3: Yes. The bot should notify the submitter and comment on the submission.
• Option 4: Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list and notify the submitter and comment on the submission.
• Option 5: No.

JJP_Master (she/they) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that I changed Option 1 to decline rather than reject, as reject is a very specific term in AFC and I don't think that is what was meant here. Reject means the draft can never be resubmitted, due to violating WP:NOT or having extremely obvious and egregious non-notability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

---

• Oppose option 1, per the discussion above this is a very bad idea. Support option 2, this seems harmless and seems worth tracking - as long as it is made absolutely clear that being rejected previously is not a reason to reject - if the original reason was correct and still applies then it can be rejected again for that reason. Neutral on the other options, but any comment/notification must make it clear that it is informational only and not a rejection. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 5. AfC reviewers make mistakes. We should not be prejudicing someone's future AfC chances based on those mistakes any more than we already do - namely, that there is already a gigantic decline message on the draft. AfC is frequently a dispiriting, demoralizing, and baffling experience for new editors, mostly one of waiting and then receiving templated replies they do not fully understand. I oppose this, and I oppose any other efforts that would further increase new editor alienation in this way. -- asilvering (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4, but as with Thryduulf, the comment on submission should be marked as informational and a reviewer will come by to assess the submission. – robertsky (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support option 2. Whether any changes have been made since the last decline is often something I look for when reviewing an article with declines, as it helps to see if the concerns from that last decline were addressed (if I feel like they are appropriate to the article as I see it), and this would be a benefit to a reviewer without being additionally "punishing" to a new editor. Reconrabbit 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Speaking as someone who doesn't review drafts but very occasionally comments on them, I think an {{AfC comment}}-like mention at the top would be easiest to work with, so I guess I'm at Option 3 or 4. Very dubious that a bot could reasonably handle the "(much)" in the preceding section header without unacceptable false positives and negatives, but detecting completely unchanged submissions would be both feasible and useful. —Cryptic 20:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support Option 5 - No. Oppose Options 1, 2, 3, 4. Support based on Asilvering's comment. Opposes are my own, doubtless with others. As a reviewer I declare myself capable of checking, and I do. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 but instead of adding to a list, add to a category (preferably a hidden one). Yes, definitely notify the submitter and comment on it, but having a list may discourage the submitter if they see that their draft is listed on a list. Having a hidden category would be better (at least imho) where a parameter of Template:AFC submission can add the draft into the category. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Though with all options, the reviewer would still do the same work... Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• I suppose I wouldn't oppose a bot that automatically leaves a comment, but I don't really see the point either. Reviewers should be evaluating based on the current state of the draft — previous declines really shouldn't matter in most cases. I think this would encourage summary "no change" declines without actually looking at the content of the draft. C F A 💬 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  You're right. It would encourage reviewers to "decline" the draft just because it hasn't changed since last review. However, thinking now, it might encourage editors to keep working on the draft because they see that "it hasn't changed since last review". If that's the case, reviewers should "wait". So perhaps after the bot leaves a comment, reviewers should wait at least a couple minute before reviewing in case the editor wants to add content? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  My position is that if they did not see being declined as reason to keep working on the draft, they are unlikely to have a positive view of an automated message telling them that the draft hasn't changed. -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• No too easy to game. The simplest bot would just compare revisions. A submitter would then just have to add like a space or a few words to change it. A more complicated bot would flag changes that were too small or simple, but then that just encourages submitters to ramble. A bot can't assess the quality of a change, only editors can. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Strongest Oppose to 1 as bad reviews do exist. Also, sometimes submitters have discussed it with the reviewer and been told to resubmit for a second opinion etc.

Weak Oppose 2, 3 & 4 as I'm not convinced a bot will accurately determine what no substantive change is and I see little value in just flagging straight re-submits

Support 5 as de-facto option left KylieTastic (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 4 especially with several disruptors (and one dynamic IP so block doesn't help) who just do drive by submissions. Frustrating to the editor to receive another decline through no fault of their own. Having them in the queue is a waste of reviewers' time though when it's a quick decline because the improvements haven't been made. I think it's less wrong decline and more no discussion about why the feedback was wrong that's the red flag. Star Mississippi 23:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I lean towards Option 5, but for those pages/editors engaged in a problematic level of drive-by submissions, I wonder whether a completely different approach might work better. For example: If you think the previous decline was correct, and you also think it's a drive-by re-nom, then move the article to the mainspace and send it straight to AFD. If it's kept, then the submitter was correct, and the previous decline was wrong. Also, it's now out of the AFC queues. However, if it's deleted, salt the page name(s) in both Draft: and mainspace for the next year (or two?), so that AFC can be done with it. Either way, it's no longer AFC's problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Option 1. Frankly, trusting fellow reviewers to check how much a draft has changed since a previous decline is reasonable to do. Letting a Bot do something creates an option to game the system. We don't need that. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 00:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Option 2, neutral on Option 4, and oppose the rest. I do not see the point in notifying submitters when they already are aware they did not make any changes. Perhaps they wanted another review. Putting unchanged drafts in a hidden list like the copyvio one seems optimal as it reduces complexity and unnecessary messages to submitters. It would make finding easy declines and disruptive drive by submissions easier to find. I also support adding a verbiage that being unchanged should not be the sole reason to decline again. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 5 - Reviewers should be instructed, more clearly if necessary, to check whether the draft has been revised since the last decline, and to use human judgment in deciding what is enough improvement. There is no need for automated aid, which could make mistakes and could be gamed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2, at least, option 4, at best. Yes, reviewers make mistakes, but they make mistakes in both directions, and should also consider the guidance inherent in a previous rejection. BD2412 T 15:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 4 preferably, but I'm okay with option 5 as well (TBH, I don't think this is a major problem in the bigger scheme of things, and the details could be tricky). Also oppose option 1, regardless of whether it was intended to say 'reject', or merely 'decline'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

PS: When I say details could be tricky, I didn't mean in a technical sense, but rather in defining what the trigger condition of "changed (much)" actually means. Size change doesn't always tell us much: only a few kb might have changed, yet the draft was completely rewritten; conversely, a large kb change could mean that the author simply deleted the earlier AfC templates. Number of sources, ditto: adding ten new rubbish sources to the earlier rubbish sources still adds up to only rubbish; whereas using the same sources but citing them correctly might have resolved the decline reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 5. AfC reviewers sometimes make mistakes, particularly when dealing with areas that they are not familiar with. (I can't count how many drafts on academics have been rejected and told to supply GNG, and I've also seen rejections of drafts on politicians that clearly passed NPOL.) Creators should always be allowed to ask for a second opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 5 Per asilvering and Espresso Addict. I would further that; reviewers often make mistakes....specifically declining articles for reasons that are not decline criteria. Also some reviewers tend to pass only unusually safe passes. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 5 per Asilvering. If a reviewer makes a mistake (which often happens), the submitter shouldn't be even more penalized for it. Same if they just want another opinion on their draft. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 4 per Star Mississippi. I'll add: Resubmitting an unchanged draft is a sign of a problem even if the declining reviewer had made a mistake. And it will rarely be the case that they have made a mistake given a creator who resubmits an identical draft, which very strongly correlates with the draft being poor in the first place and not deserving of acceptance.—Alalch E. 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 5 (do nothing). Like Primefac below, I'm surprised this got the RfC stage given the overwhelmingly negative reception in the original discussion, and hope the closer of this discussion will take that into account. AfC reviewers make mistakes but, more to the point, people can have good faith disagreements about the suitability of an article. If the submitter disagrees with a reviewer, they have every right to ask for a second opinion without edit warring with a bot or making pointless changes. – Joe (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 5 - Given the unevenness of reviews, authors have legitimate reasons for seeking a second, third or fourth review. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC discussion

Um... didn't this get fairly roundly shot down in the original discussion? Why does it need a full RFC to work out any further details? Primefac (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that only Option 1 was outright rejected in the above discussion. The rest were counterproposals that seemed to have at least some support. JJP_Master (she/they) 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Meh, RFC just seems like a lot of bureaucracy for something that didn't really have a lot of discussion and could have probably been dealt with in-house. Carry on I suppose. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I second your 'meh'. Why are we going through this extra layer. If it ain't broke don't fix it! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hate to be Devil's Advocate for an RFC I've opposed, but I think we've got more, clearer answers to the question in the few hours since this RfC opened than we had in the entire earlier discussion, so there's that. And I do think AfC is pretty broke and needs some fixing. I just think this is tinkering in the wrong direction. -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

While we're here and talking about reviewers making mistakes, let me make my perennial plea that, if you see, this, you go ask the reviewer about it on their talk page. We all have to learn somehow! And if the reviewer is making lots of mistakes, it will be easier for any single editor to figure this out later if there's a track record of them on their talk page. By the way, for those who haven't learned this trick yet: the AFCH script will allow you to resubmit drafts as though you were the original submitter. If you think something was inappropriately declined, you can resubmit it to the queue yourself and then immediately accept it, or resubmit it and leave a comment explaining why you did so. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Or if you want to resubmit a draft on behalf of another user so they get the AfC communications rather than you, such as the Accept notification, you can use {{subst:submit|Creator's username}}. The other option is to click the Resubmit button then change the User (u=) from your name to theirs. S0091 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The AFCH script will do this for you automatically. -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ahh..ok, I see now. You review on an already declined draft. I had never clicked the Submit button because I assumed it worked the same way as the Resubmit button in the decline message but the AFCH script gives you options to assign the submitter. I can't tell you how many times I have resubmitted drafts using the manual methods I outline above. The more you know! :) S0091 (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indian state symbols

It seems we have a new instalment in the series of bogus Indian state symbols, this time with Draft:List of Indian state vegetables. Different IP from the previous ones, but probably the same user. Just flagging this here to avoid a repeat of the earlier sich. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I have cleared up the rest of the related junk edits from them. KylieTastic (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This time, it's Draft:List of Indian state cuisines. Curious to see what's coming next? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Nope. They should be warned then blocked for making hoaxes. KylieTastic (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Deleted as hoaxes and blocked for block evasion. KylieTastic (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

question

Hi I was just curious, I have done (alot, as I know other editors have as well) of AFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ozzie10aaaa/AfC_log, I was wondering when the end of year awards (or recognition) for AFC are given?, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa, what end-of-year awards are you talking about? I can't remember any, and I just checked the archives for December 2022 and 2023 and didn't see anything (but could have missed it). -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I assumed(hoped) that similar to NPP [3] there would be some sort of award/barnstar for 2024,since the year is practically over, for all the AFC's done over the past year(for the editors)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

if there is a list of the top 20 AFC editors I would be happy to hand them out(below is a example)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I assume the NPP ones rely on the patrol logs. AfC does not have any central logging so there is no good data, especially for > 6 months when a lot of the declined drafts are deleted. KylieTastic (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Top_AfC_reviewers? qcne (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

If it had been running for a year I guess you could check the data from the last day of each month and add together but it's only been running since 12 November 2024. KylieTastic (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

this is better than nothing...Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Top AfC reviewers#Last 1 year...I could leave the barnstar for all 100 ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess it's an approximation but not sure how it's getting its data but its a bit short. It says SafariScribe has 5418 reviews, but there log User:SafariScribe/AfC_log has 6846 entries. For myself it says 2889 reviews but my logs User:KylieTastic/AfC log show 6200. I guess it does not count deleted items and I do a lot of 0 day junk bashing. KylieTastic (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

well if there are no outright objections, I can do it Monday/Tuesday...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I see no harm and it's a bit of positive feedback which in the current world seems needed. So as far as I'm concerned go for it and thanks Ozzie for thinking of something positive. KylieTastic (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

done,Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Just noting, Ozzie10aaaa, that your edits missed the closing |} and thus broke the pages you added it to. I believe someone else is cleaning it up, but for next time please make sure you do one or two, check things are working, and then blast through the list. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks for pointing it out (I had zero idea about |} ), will take your advice,,,Merry Christmas--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

for example ...

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
		message

Perhaps add to reviewing instructions?

Twice in the last week I've seen two AfCs passed which had previously AfD'd versions. Both of these AfC approvals were quickly tagged for G4. One of them had just been deleted at AfD and was under deletion review when the filer created a new draft which was miraculously reviewed in two days and quickly passed. This really screwed up the active DRV, which I was forced to close procedurally even though the filer had almost no support from commenters. What instructions do we give AfC reviewers about checking deleted edits and deleted versions from two days previously? Passing submissions which are currently at DRV? I'm aware that Articles for Creation is one approved way to recreate a deleted page, however this project surely has some guidance on the matter. Seems this should be on a checklist somewhere ("Is this namespace currently at a deletion process? Quickfail if yes."), checking a new draft against deleted versions. BusterD (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If the article is of the same name then the AFCH tool says if it was previously deleted and so that should lead reviewers to look at the previous reasons. Since the core purpose of AfC is to determine if it would be deleted at AfD checking the previous deletions should be a key point of any review. Personally I have always thought the previously deleted warning should be a bit larger and remind people to check. KylieTastic (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Some reviewers might be concerned about readily being able to view previous deleted versions. As an admin, I'd be happy to spend a few minutes helping reviewers with temporarily undeleting such material. If I didn't possess the tools, I'd go to WP:Requests for undeletion and ask to see the page temporarily before I approved the draft. I'd likely approve such a request 99% of the time. BusterD (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with KylieTastic about previous deletions needing be to more prominent than what they are already (well, I say I disagree but KylieTastic is usually right, thus their Tasticness, so likely I am missing something). When a reviewer clicks "Review", there is a popup that lists all the deletions of an article of the same title and the logged reason/notes (G11, AfD, etc.), which to me is very clear. I think this particular scenario is a one-off. Outside if extenuating circumstances or a mistake/miss, I cannot think of reason a reviewer would ever accept a draft that had just been deleted via an AfD discussion (much less one that had been deleted multiple times such as this one if my guess of which article this is about is correct). Also, I have never seen a need to see deleted versions. If I think it might meet G4, I just nominate it and an admin can make to decision but G4 should be very rare for drafts as one of the uses for AfC is to get an independent review of previously deleted articles. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it often but I thought AFCH just said "The page xxxxx has been deleted Y time(s). View deletion log". That was the only part I was thinking could be a tad larger font as it gets lost compared to the big Accept/Decline/Comment buttons. If you then click on "View deletion log" (I think) it then shows the details but no auto show. SO actually if that was true rather than larger, it should just show the full details. However, I'm very tired I may just be remembering it wrong and can't find an example. KylieTastic (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I think your memory is correct, Kylie. I don't think I've ever had any trouble noticing it but I'm sympathetic to the idea that it's easy to miss. @BusterD, were these AfC accepts both from the same reviewer? -- asilvering (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Two different reviewers, both worthy wikipedians. The latest example, the one which I spoke about above is 15.ai, reviewed by User:Pokelego999. The other one was Nicolás Atanes, but I found out later the reviewer (User:Qcne) was presented with Nicolas Atanes and in the moment didn't see the previous deletions. IMHO, both reviewers made calls I might have made myself. BusterD (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

On my end, I didn't see anything related to deletion logs. I don't know if I missed it or if it just wasn't present, but I had no indication it had previously gone through anything since I hadn't noticed any logs. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

S0091 is correct the text is big enough as I have just seen it again on Draft:Toula Gordillo. However, I do think the default state of the history should be expanded as it is important information that all reviewers should be aware of. KylieTastic (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Now with fresh example, I agree the default should show the log info so you don't have to click on "view deletion log". It would actually be great to know it upfront but I'm not sure that's possible because the draft/sandbox title might change before a review which introduces various complications. However, it is aggravating to conduct an assessment then find out the deletion history after clicking Review. S0091 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Class assessment and the Banner Shell

Is the class assessment within the {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} template meant to be a snapshot of the class at creation, or, is it meant to "grow" with the article. I ask this, as now class allocation is set in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which reports a conflict if the class in the banner shell is different from any other class assignment. If the "class=" parameter from AfC is meant to be a snapshot at creation, then the Banner Shell code should ignore it if it's not the same as the overall "class=" setting. If it's meant to change as the article improves over time, then we can just remove it from the AfC template and just use the Banner shell assignment. Ping User: Tom.Reding & User:MSGJ as the banner shell experts. The-Pope (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why it would be a snapshot. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it could be a snapshot, if it's meant to track the 'quality' of articles coming out of the AfC process at the time of acceptance/publication.

Conversely, it could evolve over time, if it's meant to track the quality of AfC-created articles at some future time of such tracking or analysis.

FWIW, I had assumed the former, which is why I give it the rating suggested by the rating tool, even if the other projects take theirs from the shell. Perfectly happy to be proven wrong on this, obvs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The template should probably state which one it is. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Reviewers obviously need to know which way to apply this, and ideally all do it the same way. But future readers (under the 'snapshot' model, that is) would also need to know why the AfC rating is potentially different from the others. ("Hey, my article is rated A, why is AfC still marking it down as Start?!") -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought this was changed some time ago so that the AFCH tool only puts a single assessment in the shell like all other projects. Do you have a case to illustrate the issue? KylieTastic (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It was, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_58#Assigning_WikiProjects_to_Articles KylieTastic (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that settles it - putting a single assessment in the shell is the opposite of a permanent snapshot. My thinking is similar to DoubleGrazing's, except that I assumed the latter (evolving over time in the shell), mostly because {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} is not in Category:Custom class masks of WikiProject banners, which it would have to be for snapshotting to be a thing. Since that and several other things would have to change for the snapshot model to be operational, there doesn't seem to be an impetus for it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this gets brought up every once in a while. The assessment is more for tracking current status. Personally I would advocate for removing quality rankings for our project - we do not improve articles to a higher standard, so saying that it is a "GA-class AFC article" is somewhat misleading since we're really only tracking how far its come since creation. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not aware of any wikiproject banners that take a snapshot. That would be complicated to code, and counterintuitive to how wikiproject banners normally work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Arguably, the GA/FA Template has a piece on timestamps as to which was the review version. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of WikiProject banners, which inherit their class from the banner shell. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm starting to think I may have misunderstood... I thought each project's rating can be either set to take it from the banner shell, or set to a particular rating value. I had assumed that if it's set to take it from the shell, it will change as the shell rating changes. Whereas (again, I had assumed) if it's set to a particular value, it would remain fixed, unless/until it's manually changed. (This is what I was referring to as 'snapshot'.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That can be done, yes, but only for projects (like MILHIST) that opt in to that functionality. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Help

Moved to WP:TEA#Help (diff

Primefac (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Disable AFCH if there is an ongoing AfD

The AFCH tool should be disabled if there is an ongoing AfD at the corresponding mainspace title, as with Draft:Raegan Revord and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord (2nd nomination), for example. GTrang (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Why? A draft like that should be declined as exists anyway, so disabling AFCH would mean that we wouldn't be able to do that. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, that (decline as 'exists') is what GTrang did with this draft, but it was reverted as just extra administration for no reason (I think). Which then put the draft back in the pool. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I have undone that edit as the AFD is clearly trending towards the article being kept. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected the draft to the mainspace article, which is what I like to do in these situations to avoid duplication. I think editors should be encouraged to work on the mainspace article and not the draft, so that everyone is using their time efficiently. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I was reverted. NatGertler, can you please elaborate on how you plan to move a draft over an existing mainspace page? Did you perhaps mean that you plan to manually copy paste merge some pieces of the draft instead? In which case, the draft would be fine as a redirect, since the page history can easily be checked. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the AfD, there is reasonable support for (if the article survives AfD) deleting the version that is currently in mainspace and moving this draft one into mainspace at the same address. This version is in much better shape, and there is nothing substantial in the mainspace one that needs to be merged into this. If folks are to work on either of them, we want them working on this one, which is likely to be the surviving version in some form (whether it survives as a draft or in mainspace depends on the outcome of the AfD, but even at the most complicated take it will be merged into the mainspace one, so may as well have it here.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Got it. I think this should be de-duplicated at some point, but with your comment in mind, I suppose it's OK to wait until after the AFD is over. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Declined AfC submissions resubmitted without any changes is live!

Per the outcome of this RfC, which is shown above, and a request filed at WP:BOTREQ by User:JJPMaster, the above page is now live and ready for reviewers to use, maintained by User:MolecularBot. It's actually caught 1 already in only the couple hours its been live, see Draft:M S Narasimha Murthy. :)

There's also a website I've made hosted on Toolforge to look up an article and see if it's resubmitted without changes, if that's more your thing.

For adding an item to the list, the requirement is that it has an AFC submission wizard edit, directly after an AFCH decline.

For removing an item from the list, the requirement is that it has a edit that is not done with AFCH or the AFC submission wizard (note: it's been very kindly suggested by Bunnypranav that it should maybe do some detecting to see if a edit is meaningful or not, any suggestions for when/when not a edit counts as meaningful are most welcome!)

Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any feedback for this bot task, or would like anything changed about it. Thanks! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 06:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Also btw an API is also available by sending a GET request to https://molecularbot2.toolforge.org/resubAPI.php?pageName=test, replacing test with the name of the page, excluding "Draft:"! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 06:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing the bot—on the new year nonetheless! Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Trying out using Microsoft Copilot to discuss notability of a particular topic

I'm not sure if people have tried this out or not. I searched AfC talk archives for "AI", "Gemini", "Copilot", and I saw that people have been talking about AI generated submissions, but I haven't seen any discussion on doing something like this.

So, anyway, I'll seek to share the dialog:

https://github.com/davidkitfriedman/general/blob/main/2025_01_02_dialog_with_Copilot_on_notability_of_GlobalProtect.md

I asked Copilot to argue against notability for GlobalPlatform, and then also to argue for notability.

Initially I just asked it what are some of the major consortia that Google is a part of.

Copilot responsed and then also prompted with, "Is there a specific area of Google's partnerships you're particularly interested in?".

And so I told it why I had asked the question initially, and it cited Wikipedia's policies, and then asked, "Do you have a specific consortium in mind that you're researching?"

I could mention that I did see this mentioned in Wikipedia:Artificial Intelligence, so perhaps editors don't feel that it's necessarily worth discussing with LLMs whether a particular topic meets notability or not.

When exploring AI techniques and systems, the community consensus is to prefer human decisions over machine-generated outcomes until the implications are better understood.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk · contribs) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Meh... what people choose to do on their own time to not think for themselves is their own concern; if an LLM tells someone that a subject is notable, but the subject is not notable, we're no worse off than the Fiver writers that get paid to write shitty prose about non-notable grocery store owners. If the LLM tells the editor that a subject is notable, and they are, then all they've really done is waste their own time, since the subject would pass our criteria anyway. Primefac (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

LLMs do not think in the traditional human way because that's not what they're trained to do. Their job is to provide compelling output. The problem with that is that LLMs don't know what truth or factual accuracy is, i. e., they don't know if what they've just made up makes any sense. In a nutshell, discussing with an LLM is like talking to a parrot on steroids. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I've seen several editors assuring us that their obviously LLM-generated draft has been painstakingly written to comply with all Wikipedia requirements for notability, verifiability, and other core policies yada yada... and then it turns out the said draft doesn't cite a single source. So if the editor hasn't the first clue about our requirements, then the LLM clearly won't impose one on them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

LLM and Wikipedia don't mix very well. In my opinion, in almost all cases, it's just a timesink. LLM is useful for certain non-Wikipedia things, but is not a great fit here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

African legislators

Just found out why we're seeing so many new drafts (mostly very short stubs) on legislators, esp. Nigerian ones, lately: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Event:African_Legislators_in_Red This runs until the end of the month, and one of the rules is that the articles must get into the main space by then, so expect to see some fast track requests at the help desk as the deadline approaches... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ugh. People can wait. We don't expedite for contests. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

hmm... I guess we do. Vanderwaalforces (intentionally not pinged) seems to be participating and reviewing drafts from this thing. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

So long as it's individual reviewers making the offer to do it, seems fine to me. Not really different from someone, say, going through and reviewing all the OKA drafts (I've done this) or volunteering to help out with an editathon as a reviewer (I've done this, too). But I vote we ping Vanderwaalforces to each and every help desk request, if they arise. :P -- asilvering (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Please do ping me if need arise! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sure, I don't have any issue with them (or anyone else) making it a personal priority to help out, I'm just saying we-as-a-Project should not be expediting things. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been accepting a lot of these as inherently notable since I tend to camp out on the recently submitted feed but, yeah, I don't see why these endless stubs need to go through AfC..? qcne (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait, they get money for this? I didn't think that was permitted? qcne (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on what I could find (which was little more than this) it appears above-board, since they're not being paid to edit anything specific. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It's probably their way of having a check/balance for the stubs so that they don't have the issue that some other editathons have had where people spam utter garbage and maybe it gets reverted. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Primefac Correct! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne They actually need to go through AfC as a "damage control" both for English Wikipedia and the project itself. Also, these editors are mostly new, so yeah! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense :) qcne (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Most of them are easy to accept. I haven't come across too many issues (which is uncommon for contests with rewards), though some of the longer drafts do tend to lean on the promotional side. I've also found at least 3 copyvios stemming from this event from unrelated Copypatrol work, so be on the lookout for that I guess. C F A 17:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@CFA Oh yes! I, in fact, disqualified one of the contestants for copyvio. I am especially not taking that lightly. By the way, I cannot thank you enough for keeping an eye on the article and tagging them with the WikiProject template, kudos! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft nominated for MFD as not notable after decline

A draft BLP on a politician who does not meet political notability was declined, and then nominated for deletion by the reviewer who declined it. It was my understanding that AFC reviewers should know that drafts are not reviewed for notability or sanity. Either an AFC reviewer has been given access to the script who hasn't been adequately briefed as to how drafts are reviewed, including that they are only nominated for deletion in rare circumstances, or an editor who is not an AFC reviewer is reviewing drafts. Do the guidelines for reviewers need clarifying? We know that sometimes New Page reviewers mistakenly review new drafts with the same standards as they use to review new articles, but apparently some AFC reviewers also don't know when t not to send drafts to XFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Or it could just be that the reviewer didn't know, and they could be gently told how to do it correctly. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call this a "hidden" rule or anything but I agree with Eek that "they didn't know" is probably the most likely scenario, and they should politely be a) informed, and b) asked to withdraw the MFD. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Context: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bashir Muhammad Hussari Galadanchi. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I left the MFDer a message at their user talk about not MFDing drafts like this one in the future. They were receptive to the feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions/List

is linked on the header, but I believe serves no purpose. This vaguely-named page doesn't have any "list" of submission by itself but links to two other lists. One of them, Wikipedia:AfC sorting, is already linked to by the header.

I propose it to be merged to its parent page /Submissions to reduce confusion and the clutter in the header. Only thing that really needs to be merged is the mention of Template:AfC statistics. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hasn't worked since at least 2022; you're just the second person to notice. Feel free to pull whatever you need from the history and plonk it elsewhere if that makes sense. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

A little merging issue

Hello. Following a personal request for an AFC, I thought I would give it a try in spite of an article already existing as a redirect (never did). I over estimated my skills and need a little help :)

So the old article was a redirection (Lahcen Ahansal). I removed the redirection. Could not "Yes" the draft article under the right name (Draft:Lahcen Ahansal) becase of the already existing article. Thought I could approve it under a different spelling Lacen Ahansal and then merge their histories.

Ok, histories are not merging. What am I missing ? Anthere (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't even understand, maybe because I am thinking about a lot of things. It does appear that Primefac has done something like that cleared the issue. Cheers!Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Anthere, there are a couple of other things you should have done. For anyone who isn't an admin, this is what should have been done

• Request a {{db-afc-move}} on the redirect (this might have been declined given the old article's history, but then I -- as an admin -- would have probably just done a page swap)
• Request a page swap at WP:RM/TR

For an admin, the options are:

• Pageswap the draft and article
• Move the old page (without redirect) to a disambiguated title

Copy/pasting a page to another location is not a good way to get a page to a specific title. Just to clear up SafariScribe's confusion, I just did a page swap on the two pages to put the new article at the correct title, while preserving the history of the old page.

As a minor note, Special:MergeHistory is only available to admins, which is why you couldn't use it. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Struck, updated, and inserted: 14:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Anthere is an admin. Is showing blue in my user highlighter script. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I was just going to say. And on multiple projects, it seems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

le sigh Forgive me for not having special admin-script glasses on.

A histmerge wasn't possible because there are (effectively) parallel histories; there was nothing that could be merged from the new page into the old page because of diffs from 2010 at the old page blocking the 2025 edits from the new. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This explains that... I felt vastly stupid :) Indeed, I could have swapped the two versions to have the new article history sitting at the right title. But I was trying hard to maintain both histories, which in fact was not really needed. Hmmm.

Situation is perfect now. Real author of current version is credited. All good. Thanks a lot for fixing. Anthere (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Always happy to help, feel free to drop me a line any time you have histmerge questions, there are some who would say I'm an authority on the matter :-) Primefac (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Non-English drafts

I've just declined yet another non-English draft (not the 1st one of the day, not even the 3rd, and that's just me!). In the Category:AfC submissions declined as not in English there are nearly 1,000 such declines. Would it be a good idea to put something in the wizard to warn authors that this is the English-language Wikipedia, and if they want to submit content in another language they should head to the relevant language version instead? It's mildly annoying to review these drafts, but I can imagine it's much more frustrating to put in all that effort, only to be told afterwards that it was all for nothing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably, but if they're non-English-speaking then what are the realistic chances that they're going to read yet another banner telling them they shouldn't create pages in languages other than English? I'd rather avoid banner bloat if possible, and if the subject is notable it's a quick thing to decline as non-Eng and let them (or G13) sort it out. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

In my experience they're not all (or even most?) "non-English-speaking"; many do subsequently communicate in English at the help desk and/or talk pages, and some even resubmit an English-translated draft. It's just that many seem genuinely surprised that the different language versions are in fact separate projects, and that submitting a Bulgarian (say) draft here doesn't help get it into the Bulgarian Wikipedia.

But yes, I take the point about banner bloat. Also, just because we warn them, doesn't mean they won't go against the warning regardless – after all, we get plenty of undisclosed COI/PAID submissions although the wizard clearly warns against these. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. As usual, I'm not strictly opposed to adding something, just that my knee-jerk reaction is to wonder whether it's worth doing so... Primefac (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Article submissions that need reviewing can be found in Category:Pending AfC submissions and there is also a useful list which is maintained by a bot.
• You might wish to add {{AFC status}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. There is also a project userbox. If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants.
• Several of our members monitor an IRC channel, #wikipedia-en-afc ^connect, and you are most welcome to join in.

Once again, welcome to the project. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Guess who :) --Meaghan ^{guess who :)} 22:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I know your Midnight Comet. December21st2012Freak ^{Halloween is coming} 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dito--Coldplay Expert 23:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Steve2011 ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey december, how ya doing? Just dropped by to say awesome contributions and vandal fighting (hec I may even give you a barnstar in due course!). Oh, and thanks for the vandalism (bet it was good to turn the tables) and guestbook signing. Oh, and BTW, I see your username is becoming a film. I am off to see 2012 by Roland Emmerich (aka the disater movie guy), bet he got the inspiration off you! Good to see ya. AtheWeatherman 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lo- wait, sorry. Wrong page, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if spongefrog will win...--Coldplay Expert 02:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009 messages

Red Star

Red Star Congratulations, Steve2011! It's my pleasure to award you November 2, 2009's Red Star for being hard working, kind to others, and for being an excellent user in general. A record of this award will always be kept at User:Meaghan/Shining Stars. Enjoy! Meaghan guess who :) 00:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC) You could also receive the next higher up award, the Orange Star!

Thanks. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 00:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ohh so shiny! (dont worry myself, you'll get one soon!)--Coldplay Expert 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! MY EYES!!!!!!! Must get... Sigh, that will never happen.--Jakkinx Happy Thanksgiving! 01:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Mutinus caninus

...ever read the comments? This is not vandalism, it is the correction of something that was not correctly translated from Latin. See malfunction report: User:ClueBot/FalsePositives#C.C3.BA_Faoil --Cú Faoil (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You have inserted "penis" which is vandalism. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 00:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Believe this individual is correct, actually. It correctly translates to "penis," not "tail." Hence, "penis" is not vandalism in this case. Ginsengbomb (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not every insertion of the word "penis" is vandalism. Consult the linked dictionary and WP:AGF. --Cú Faoil (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikicup

nice to see your on board. Now we just need LSF--Coldplay Expert 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Award

		Ezekiel 7:19 Guestbook Barnstar
		This user has signed my guestbook and been presented with a barnstar, so sign my guestbook now if you have not yet, NOW!!!--Ezekiel 7:19 Le†'s Go Buffalo! (sign)

Lord of The vulcans

Hi lord of the Vulcans you may be interested in formatting this page List of Sufi Saints of South Asia ..I think I made some errors there ;) can you help me please --NotedGrant Talk 07:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the...

I see your starting your own. Good luck! (Maybe we should change our colors so that way people can make out the diffrence between our two diffrent programs.)--Coldplay Expert 18:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I also want to be Wikipedian of the Day, because I am a great editor. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 18:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that you are going to give your first award to yourself?--Coldplay Expert 18:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I will give my first award to another Wikipedian, like an Administrator, or the Wikipedia founder, Jimbo Wales. I will not give any to myself. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 18:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I just noticed you and me joined only 4 days apart form each other. I also saw your stats and Im impressed. Ill consider you for the next award :)--Coldplay Expert 18:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell with that I'm a good editor too see.I corrected a link on CP's talk page today :D (Honest).D2012 thanks for pointing out that citation part in the article I'll try referencing it :)--NotedGrant Talk 18:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcoming

Thanks for welcoming users (though please help me in welcoming those with contributions already, please! It takes forever).-- fetchcomms☛ 04:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RFA Question #11

Just wondering, what is it about question 11 that bothers you? I am not asking you to change from oppose to support. I am just trying to get some information. Sebwite (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, December21st2012Freak! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, 8, November 2009! Keep up the great work!--Coldplay Expert 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

Thank you. (Note that this is my alternative account, this is not a sockpuppet.) Lord of the Vulcans 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)