User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 52

Arb / Fram
I know I come across as a grumpy bastard (which I am, of course), but thank you for being one of the few Arbs who took the time to discuss and explain your reasons and rationales, even if I didn't agree with them all. - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thankyou. It is the nature of ArbCom that almost all decisions will be disagreeable to somebody - including at times other members of the Committee. I do think that explaining decisions should be part of the process. It helps me as well, especially as if there are flaws in my reasoning they can be identified and pointed out to me. SilkTork (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there were necessarily flaws in your reasoning, but just that the conclusions you drew from the facts you knew differed from the opinions I drew from the facts I knew. Both of us were, therefore 'correct' in the opinion, but were working from different starting points. Either way, kudos to you for being open to discussion and to being flexible enough to change your position from time to time. I see you've retired from ArbCom: enjoy not being in the locus of criticism and grief, and I hope you have time to pop another article or two through GA or even FA. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, thank you for your hard work. I can only imagine how difficult this has been for all of you, and I appreciate the time and energy you all spent on this. --valereee (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

My deepest thanks, and respect, to you. I remember that you said recently that you had come to feel like you didn't have the right temperament to be on ArbCom. In one fish's opinion, you actually have shown yourself to be just the kind of person I want to see on ArbCom. You have shown an excellent willingness to engage with the community, and to consider, and reconsider, various perspectives. But I can certainly appreciate that you would prefer to step back from all of the stresses. I wish you the best, and look forward to continuing to see you around the wiki. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thanks, though I don't feel very positive about my participation on ArbCom this year. I think I could have done better, and I certainly wish I had. SilkTork (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, many of us are our own worst critics. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * SilkTork, I don't think you have anything to reproach yourself for whatsoever. You are not the only one to have left the Committee this year; some will be missed while with some there may have been a sigh of relief. You will be missed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

mention of you at WP:ARCA
I've made a clarification request there and while I've not named you as a party I did mention your name as it grew out of the discussion we had on my talk page about clerking, so this is a courtesy notice letting you know. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I think, given the sort of pushback there has been at times regarding the organisation of ArbCom talkpages, that some clarity as to how they are organised, formatted, maintained, and kept orderly is appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Eastleigh meetup
It was nearly five years ago, and I couldn't make it, but see Meetup/English South Coast 1. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I wanted to go to that, but I couldn't make it. Be interesting to see if there is any interest in doing a South Coast 2 somewhere. There's Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth, Dorchester, Exeter, Plymouth, Brighton, Hastings, Eastbourne and Dover to choose from! Might be fun to turn up at a Wetherspoon in one of those places every two or three months and see who turns up. Would you be interested in doing that with me? Perhaps have some form of Wikipedia poster/banner/tea towel made up to identify the table, and advertise there's a meeting going on. Invite discussion, and perhaps new members. SilkTork (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My budget doesn't stretch to much travelling these days, it's over six months since I last got to London. The person to ask about banners is, whilst is keen to get new meetups started. Others to try include ,  and . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * has one of those old Wikimedia UK tabletop banner. I would imagine that's the case with a few other editors as well. -- KTC (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There were two meetups in Portsmouth in 2014 - Meetup/Portsmouth/1 and Meetup/Portsmouth/2 (apparently I was at both of them, but I only have 1 in my memory!). From those pages it's worth pinging Brammers, JuneGloom07 and Leutha (CT Cooper has retired). Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Heya, I'm no longer an active Wikimedian – mostly it's just checking my watchlist and occasional rvv these days. Best of luck with South Coast 2! Brammers (talk/c) 21:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There was also a meetup in Plymouth but in the event only myself and HJ Mitchell (i.e. the organisers) attended. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You'd probably have a better chance of getting a decent attendance if rather than hold it somewhere like Portsmouth or Brighton that would be extremely convenient for some people but a nightmare for anyone not in the immediate area, you instead hold it somewhere like Reading, Exeter, Basingstoke or even Crawley/Gatwick that has a lot of roads, railways and bus routes converging. The Manchester meetups are consistently well-attended not because we have a particularly active community in Manchester (despite Jimbo's "Mancs dominate the wiki" meme, I could probably count the active editors there on one hand) but because Manchester is cheap and easy to get to from a lot of other places so it draws in people from across the northwest, Wales, Midlands and Yorkshire. &#8209; Iridescent 20:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

TY
Thanks for responding. I should have remembered the specifics on that one. Maybe it's selective memory - but more likely age I think. I have to admit that I had mixed thoughts on that one. That "super skerit" evidence and all. Haha. Anyway - thanks again, and Cheers. — Ched (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've not quite left the house yet, so just caught your message. Yes, the "super sekrit" evidence is all here on Wikipedia, but we got caught up in rules and procedures which made it very hard to reference it or apply it. A public RfA was really the best option to deal with the situation. SilkTork (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

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

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

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

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

Restrictions
I know you're not an arbitrator anymore but because you have discussed this before I'll ask you here. I'm wandering about the next review and one of the things I could suggest is different options for the restrictions like only allowing creating CPs or only allowing redirects/DAB pages (for the page creation ones) and having a 1RR or 0RR or number of moves limit for the move restrictions. While I understand that restrictions can be good for all (including the restricted editor who then doesn't end up in conflict) I really do think we need to consider relaxing the restrictions. When we removed the geoNC discussion ban people were worried of problems but very few actually came (and only 2 appear to have actually come both in August last year, see User:BD2412/Archive 032 where no "problem here that calls for admin resolution" was the reply and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive991 where the filer's conduct was actually noted) and neither had much to do with geographical NC anyway. Similarly with other page creation no problems have occurred, see also User:Crouch, Swale/Categories.

I think we should do the same thing with the move and article creation restrictions, relax them with the condition that the can be reinstated but I see no reason that would happen since if I am told to change by behaviour I will. I'd also note the in response to the point you made about problematic moves that go unnoticed and requiring lots of work to cleanup later, that wouldn't likely be a huge job since you can program a bot to revert moves (say except for cases were the page has been moved elsewhere by a different user) and you could also use a bot to delete pages created by a user that don't have a significant amount of content added by others. In contrast to edits to existing articles (like what Bob Henshaw did) that are far more difficult to deal with once the article has been edited.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 14:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You're going to have to discuss this with someone else Crouch. SilkTork (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The Closer's Barnstar
We don't appear to have one. Our loss. We do now :) But And this qualifies in spades. Great close, the nuance is palpable.  ——  SN  54129  19:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hyperbolick's comment "Move to draft" says it more succinctly, and if there were more comments along those lines, that would have been a better close. But I have made the offer to userfy it (or to recreate it in WP:Draft) if someone requests, and I may even help out on improving the article if someone does want to work on it. SilkTork (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think I'd like that, if you would be so kind. I'm pretty exclusionist but I think this nudges over, because she's credited in several reports as having broken significant news. If this is TOOSOON, I don't think it's much too soon. Guy (help!) 22:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi JzG. Just for clarity: your comment "I think I'd like that, if you would be so kind" following my comment "I have made the offer to userfy it (or to recreate it in WP:Draft) if someone requests" is that you'd like me to userfy it for you at User:JzG/Erica C. Barnett, or recreate it at Draft:Erica C. Barnett. I'm happy to go either way. SilkTork (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Move to Draft please, or I'll do it if you're happy for me to. I just don't want to undo another admin's carefully weighed deletion. Guy (help!) 11:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * JzG. Done. Please check over it - it's been a while since I was involved in doing that. It may have been called a different name back then. SilkTork (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I second 's nomination for you receiving a Closer Barnstar (we really should create one!). Your analysis of the arguments,, for and against were impressive. You struck an appropriate balance in your close and the offer to userfy the article should negate any potential "overturn" !votes at deletion review, should it come to that (I suspect it won't). There is nothing to overturn here. I also appreciated your comments on the inferior sourcing in the close, which, to me, seemed like an attempt to project notability (I'd originally added "refspam" tags to the article). Doug Mehus T · C  00:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Although you're not mentioned by name, your close is the subject of Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents. Mackensen (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. That thread appears to be about an accusation that Dmehus is too keen on challenging the views of others rather than the close itself. SilkTork (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I love the closing door barnstar - well done. SilkTork (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Question Since the article has been draftified upon request, which I also supported in the AfD discussion, I'm wondering if maybe we should restore, to Draft: namespace, the associated talkpage particularly as there were relevant discussions with respect to notability, COI, sourcing, apparent citation overkill, etc. Secondarily, this would also allow an "old AfD" tag to be added atop the article, which, together with the talkpage discussions, would be helpful for the AfC volunteer editors as and when this article is submitted for potentially being moved to the main namespace. Doug Mehus T · C  18:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just went to do it, but see that it has already been done. SilkTork (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks...that's great. I wasn't sure if maybe I was supposed to ask you or use WP:REFUND. I figured you probably would've undeleted it. Thanks to for doing that. Doug Mehus  T · C  22:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Superchickens
This is not what I expected. Specifically, that the opposite is the case: even some of the keep comments acknowledge that the topic doesn't exist (or isn't notable). The article now kept is about a "manner of team recruitment," which takes its name from an analogy with the Muir study. It is not an article about the Muir study or about super chickens. What "even the delete commenters acknowledge" exists is the study itself. That's not this article, though. Some people proposed using the content to write about the study (e.g. Levivich, and also mentioned by Lightburst) or merging it into an article on the scientist as some sort of application of their research. That's all well and good, but the "super-chicken model" which is the subject of the article shouldn't be kept as it is. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're discussing it over at Talk:Super-chicken_Model. Please join in, your views will be important. I suspect the consensus will be to move the title to Super-chicken study which seems more appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

ITV Network
Hello. Have you any thoughts about fixing the links to new dab ITV Network? Currently it has about 1500 incoming links, which is 20 times more than any other dab on Wikipedia. I've done the first 100 or so but I think it may a job for a bot. It's probably safe to do the ones in this search automatically, after which we should be down to 100 or so which can be fixed by hand.

I'm also wondering whether ITV (TV network) is the best alternative destination for those links. If the British network is no longer the primary topic for "ITV Network" (which is debatable) then it probably doesn't meet the higher threshold for PT of the partial disambiguation "ITV (TV network)" either. What do you think? Certes (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't look at incoming links. I think you're right that ITV (TV network) would, in the circumstances, be the best target. In which case a hatnote pointing to the Indian company would be needed. SilkTork (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done; thanks. Certes (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool. SilkTork (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

 * Nice one. SilkTork (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

a message from department of redundancy department, the department, not the user named department of redundancy department
I'm curious what pending changes reviewer would provide on top of the sysop package? –xenotalk 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I was looking at this, and because of all the blue highlighting I was finding it hard to work through, so wondered if I could get rid of the blue highlighting by adding that to my rights. But it's made no change. Sigh. Sometimes IT people think they are doing something helpful, when in fact it causes problems for some users. The wording (automatically checked) is fine. The blue highlighting is therefore a redundant distraction. SilkTork (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think in that case the workflow is for you to accept the unreviewed revisions? (Or install a css hack to get rid of the highlighting!) –xenotalk 17:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking, but I don't see how I can accept them, even after adding the right. I do recall seeing something like "Accept this revision?" many years ago, and I haven't seen it for a while, so perhaps I have a script which suppresses it? SilkTork (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I could be wrong too. I don't have the rights enabled. –xenotalk 17:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But you're no longer an admin, and I assume that's not a right bundled into 'Crats rights. Or is it? SilkTork (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant - it wouldn't show for me. I do see the highlighting though. –xenotalk 17:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see the "1 change in this version is pending review." notice on Arij Fatyma, and it makes no difference if I tick or untick the Reviewer user rights. I probably don't go often to pages with pending changes protection. SilkTork (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that if edits are accepted then there's no changes that can be made (they can't be unaccepted for example). The software permanently highlights those edits which are acceptable, and leaves unhighlighted those edits which were unable to be automatically accepted, but have since been accepted. I'm not seeing the purpose of the highlighting, as there is no action to be taken, or which can be taken once the pending edit has been accepted. SilkTork (talk)
 * If you open an accepted edit in diff view and have the pending changes reviewer permission, it displays an Unaccept revision option. Edits with the lighter highlight in history that don't show as "pending review" were reverted by a later edit. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I see. Thanks for that User:Schazjmd. Is there a difference between unaccepting revision and undoing it? When there have been subsequent edits it's not possible to undo, is that the same with unaccept? SilkTork (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just tested. I unaccepted an older, accepted revision on Wade Robson. It flipped the switch to show the edit in history not-as-accepted but not pending-review either, and the text that had been changed in it (wikilinking Queensland) was still in the article. So apparently it doesn't really do anything except alter the state of the edit in history. I expect if it was the most recent edit, unaccepting would revert to pending-review, but I'm not certain. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I miss 's old username. In the rose-tinted days I like to mention in my sig, there were some terrific, witty names around. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry was a favourite of mine. SilkTork (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'm hoary-headed enough to have good memories of --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was another I had in mind! SilkTork (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the more curious of wiki-mysteries, that one. –xenotalk 12:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm morbid, but I assumed he had died. Certainly the edit history (prolific->none overnight, without a dust-up) implies it to me. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think he fell asleep in McDonalds. SilkTork (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do note that Can't sleep made logged actions for months after stopping editing. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 22:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think he faded out as people do. SilkTork (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah User:xeno, I see you've returned to the mad house. Nice one. SilkTork (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a silly place. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * I do like a holiday greeting. Thank you. SilkTork (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! SilkTork (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Looby Loo
Hello, SilkTork

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Kingsif and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Looby Loo, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion. The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit Edit the page]
 * 2) Remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) Click the  button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Kingsif (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Looby Loo
Hello, SilkTork

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Looby Loo for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Looby_Loo&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Kingsif (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification Kingsif, though before nominating any page for deletion it's usually a good idea to check the history first in case the version you are looking at has been vandalised, or otherwise altered from what it should be. You were attempting to delete an established redirect that had been overwritten with the words of a nonsense song. I think it must have happened to all of us at some point, so no worries, and the matter has now been resolved by User:SportingFlyer. SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi ST, yeah I'd looked at the history and couldn't decide whether to revert to the Hokey cokey or Andy Pandy redirect - and there's also the fact that IP was adamant about having the page stay like that, which they could recreate from a redirect, so I felt removing that opportunity was easier. I'm not sure the value of a redirect in this instance, either. If someone wants to make a good page, they can do it from a redlink. Thanks for being so nice about it, though, too :) Kingsif (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Looby Loo was Andy Pandy's girlfriend, and she used to sing "Here we go Looby Loo". It seems that some people have taken that song and expanded it with phrases from the Hokey Cokey song, and some users have been confused about it and have been redirecting Looby Loo and putting up the expanded version of Looby Loo's song. When I'm unsure where a redirect should point, I look to see if the words appear in the target article. There is, as far as I'm aware, no use of "Looby Loo" in Hokey cokey, though there is a use of "looby, looby"; while "Looby Loo" is mentioned 27 times in Andy Pandy compete with at least one source, and a picture of her in a museum, so I'm fairly confident that's the right target. Well, that, and I used to watch Andy Pandy when I was little! ;-) SilkTork (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a handy tip, thanks :) (I watched it but I don't think I remember anyone but Andy Pandy, oh no, I think I'm aging!) Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You must remember Ted? SilkTork (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say.
I am truly flattered and honored ST. Thank you. I hope you have a wonderful WikiChristmas and PediaNew Year as well. I wish only the very best for you and your family. Cheers and best always. :-) — Ched (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Many thanks, and same to you! Looking forward to futher discussion and development in the New Year. GiantSnowman 15:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to add on my thanks, SilkTork. May you have an enjoyable festive season. Cheers!  starship .paint  (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

 * Thanks! SilkTork (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings to you!

 * That's a lovely message Sandy. SilkTork (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Nice one. SilkTorkAway (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ― Buster7  &#9742;   14:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I like this message. SilkTork (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:0.5em 0.5em 0 0.5em; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello SilkTork: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,  D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  17:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message


 * Thanks! SilkTork (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Nice one. SilkTork (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px; " class="plainlinks"> 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SilkTorkたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 03:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. SilkTork (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Memorable mis-reading
Thanks for the greeting. My new glasses arrive next week and in the meantime I can touch type. Thanks for the lead to Looby Loo; It gave me the most vivid memory this Christmas. I saw your list of Andy Pandy episodes:- ''7. Looby Lou has a child'' - I had visions of nativity... and nine month before... link to the NCT. And all that before the watershed. --ClemRutter (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the greeting
Good to hear from you and I haven't been good about greetings this year thanks to an incident at the end of a rather difficult 65th year and I'm trying to go emeritus! Either way Heidegger is the new Rand and life goes on!

Happy Holidays text.png
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#1D4E89; background-color:#0f4c81; border-width:2px; text-align:left; color:white; padding:3px; max-width:750px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);>

SilkTork, Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year   – news article. – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year '' Send New Year cheer by adding     to user talk pages.

–  North America1000 21:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)