User talk:Steel1943/Archive 7

Aware of policies and in good faith
Hi,

My intention is not to flame or make people angry for unnecessary reasons. One of the good reason why people stay away from Wikipedia is stuff like this. Now I want to keep the software engineer's name bold because for more than 20 years this bug wasn't found. It is a big deal. Its like saying E=MC(sq) existed before so redirect to Albert Einstein does not need to be bold. Obviously discovery was made by Einstein and his name should be in bold. I am not comparing the software engineer to Einstein but still it is a discovery.

By the way to be fair I did not start edit war. No wasn't me. Yes people including me aren't jobless and haven't gotten all day to edit wikipedia pages (unless doing it for a living).

So please I want to rest my case by saying that it is all in good intent and not flaming anyone.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debasish Dey (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what my recent edits may have been interpreted by you, I believe you full-heartedly. In fact, if there is a single person out there who is able to edit Wikipedia all day every day, then that free time needs to be taken up by some more real life activities. The thing that I realized that many infrequent editors to Wikipedia may not know is that Wikipedia consists entirely of volunteers who are dedicated to improve the quality of this free encyclopedia, editors such as you and I. However, what this also means is that Wikipedia is essentially a community of people who determine what is acceptable and not acceptable in the content of an encyclopedia. Since Wikipedia (well, at least the English Wikipedia) has existed for over a decade, there have been instances in the past where discussions have been held to determine the most proper practices to write encyclopedic articles on Wikipedia, and most which are part of the "MOS:" shortcuts. Basically, someone at some point started a discussion to determine that this is the best way to have articles and articles' text appear on articles. The only real way to change this is to start a discussion on the related guideline page's talk page (which, in this case, would be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting). Anyways, I hope this helps better understand why these reverts have been happening. Steel1943  (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited El Castillo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Castillo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, add another to DPL bot's misreported redirects that are nominated for WP:RFD that target a disambiguation page. So with that being said, I will not correct it as there is no issue. Ha! Steel1943  (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you give some more help
Hi Steel1943, You previously helped me with the listing of a RM in to the correct position on the page WP:RM. I have another multi page RM (with emphasis on "multi", 101 articles) that is not registering. The talk page set up for hosting the RM discussion is Talk:Omar Ahmad (American politician). Any help or advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  06:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked through the entirety of the discussion, and I'm not seeing any formatting issues with your nomination that would cause the "Time cannot be ascertained" error. Your nomination has no page breaks, contains the proper dash at the beginning, is signed, and as far as I can see, has the nomination template at the top of the section you created match what is below. Honestly, I'm completely stumped. In fact, at this point, to get your answer, I would probably need to refer you to the owner of the bot that manages the WP:RM listing page, RMCD bot; the bot's owner is Wbm1058. I'm actually quite curious myself why your listing isn't appearing properly on the current discussions page. Steel1943  (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm stumped for the moment as well. You can see from the page history that I already tried a couple of changes and neither of them fixed it. Obviously the bot's regex logic is missing the signature, but I can't tell why. I'm currently working on tracking this problem down. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Found it. Ooops, it wasn't regex after all. I last bumped the bot's limit on multiple requests from 25 to 50 (diff). That was fine when the hard-coded template limit was 30. But now that Lua has released the template from any limitations, I guess the sole remaining limit is in the bot's code. I'll increase it to 150. At some point with these types of requests, you can save yourself some effort by not listing everything in the RM. If this request succeeds, in my opinion you will have established sufficient precedent to establish a de facto naming convention, and then additional similar requests can then just be moved yourself (if red-links or over redirects) or with technical requests. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Muchus Gracias amigos, Much appreciated.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  15:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Navidad. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * First off, thanks for the ridiculous warning on my talk page. Secondly, I dropped the stick a while ago; If you have the persistence to keep going against the WP:DABPIPE standard prior to the speedy move happening, that's all on you, sir. Cheers! Steel1943  (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it7 a ridiculous warning? You didn't drop the stick, you edit warred to get your preferred version. The problem is an ignorant editor made the move. The article clearly lists the subject's correct name. The guideline you wanted was WP:DABPIPING, and we're not using the correct template anyhow. The guideline clearly makes an exception for "piping if the entry's article title differs from how it should actually be rendered, due to technical limitations in Wikipedia". The current technical limitation is a page is in the way and so the article can't be moved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally didn't read any of that because I'm totally not editing Navidad anymore (until after the related page move happens). I thought my last statement was clear in that regard, but if it wasn't, here it is now. Cheers! Steel1943  (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. But your behaviour is poor and not dependant on that article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your assumption of bad faith has been duly noted. Steel1943  (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not bad faith, bad editing. You reverted against WP:BRD. It was without clear explanation. It took me engaging you here before you gave a solid reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you say so; WP:DABPIPE explains all I need to explain. For some reason though, you are insisting of continuing this conversation when I have attempted to make it clear that we are on the same page, and I have no desire to overwrite your edit until after the page move happens. So, do we have more to discuss? Steel1943  (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It takes two people to carry on a conversation, and if you make the change before I get to, feel free to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Deal! Also, I apologize about the way this discussion started on my part; seeing that nice red triangle is never a pleasant sight for me. Steel1943  (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

RMT
What I should have written on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests then? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your rationale make sense, but where you had inputted the pages using the RMassist template was backwards. Here's an example of how you entered the template at the top of Requested moves/Technical requests: "Caste system in Sri Lanka" ...When it should have actually been inputted like this: "Caste system in Ceylon" ...I've italicized and bolded the differences to show how the templates should have been inputted for proper resolution; essentially, the requests were put into the templates backwards. Steel1943  (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing, fixed all. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

About your edit requests
There has to be a more efficient way of doing it than making a protected edit request for every single page. How about you make a list of all the pages that need changing somewhere and I whizz through them with AWB? — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, it looks like Redrose64 has done them all already. But if you have any more mass-requests, it will probably be easier to make one request with instructions rather than make requests for every single page. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, and I've even thought about that myself; however, I've been doing them this way with the mindset that if another editor needs to find how the edit request resulted or originated, the information could be found on its talk page history (Well, in most cases, since some of the edit requests could be for protected talk pages or pages with edit protection or creation protection on its talk page, which in that case there really is no clear way to retain the edit request in an easily-locatable place.) I guess the concern/question I would have then is: Does my aforementioned concern need not be a concern, or is it better practice that attributions should, in theory, be easily locatable? Or, is there a different method that may be able to address the attribution concern? Steel1943  (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If I was the one answering the request, I'd put the attribution in the edit summary, although I can't speak for other admins. Maybe provide a sample edit summary as part of the request? — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Reversion on Fucked Up
Hi Steel, The edit may not appear to be vandalism on first glance, but please look through the contributions of the user who made the edit. You'll see that he was indiscriminately adding this phrase to any article he could find about bands. I had to revert over 15 of these in a short period of time, because they were being made at semi-bot speeds. -- Writing Enthusiast ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 00:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that I'm seeing what your seeing as well, good call. But, just a quick FYI, if the vandalism isn't immediately obvious, such as this case which required backstory, it is probably best to actually undo the edit instead of using rollback so the the reason behind the revert can be explained via an editnotice to prevent confusion/questions. Steel1943  (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Page moved to Draft
Thanks for moving the incomplete page to the Draft space. How long will it take to be deleted? Will I have to create a new page once I do have all of the text I need for it to be a (more) complete page? How will I remove it from the Draft space if I complete it before it is deleted? Zroscope (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, after you get the page to meet at least the qualifications outlined in Stub, you have a few options:
 * 1) If the page I requested be deleted gets deleted, you can move the page using the process outlined in Moving a page (provided you meet the requirements to be autoconfirmed),
 * 2) If the page I requested has yet to be deleted (or you have not met the requirements to be autoconfirmed), you can request that the draft be moved back into the article space via the process outlined in Requested moves/Technical requests, or
 * 3) Alternately, you can go through the process outlined at Articles for creation to request that another editor review the draft before moving it to the main article space (where it was before)
 * Honestly, I would recommend the first or second option, given that those processes does not take nearly as long, and if you are sure that your page meets the criteria to be at least a "stub", there should not be an issue that may arise that other editors or administrators may have. Hope this information helps! Steel1943  (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit Waring
Hi Steel1943, I was wondering if you had any suggestion on how to deal with the edits on the S. Korea page. Like you mentioned there seems to be an editor reverting a lot of edits and claiming that all the reverts are okay because of WP:Concensus. Do you have any advice on what to do about that? Cheers!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If that editor performs another revert without continuing discussion on the talk page, I would file a report at WP:AN3. I was actually about to file it myself a few hours ago, but did not since I did not attempt to discuss it yet on the article's talk page. However, it looks as though you have already attempted to discuss the matter with the other editor (as proven on Talk:South Korea); you may be able to start the report without "getting hit by a boomerang", but I'm personally holding off until the next revert due to my situation. Steel1943  (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Move review
FYI I closed a move review you requested. In my opinion, this addition to WP:DIFFCAPS means the status of WP:DIFFCAPS needs to be resolved before it can be applied as policy. --Tóraí (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Tom Brady
I noticed that the protection was removed two weeks ago. I'd rather start with a week and if the problem returns then increase it. If it is necessary to redo the protection after a week then please feel free to ping me and I'll get to it as soon as I see it. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Right ... I was actually a bit surprised that happened, but alas, it has happened. Given who the subject of that article is, I would have thought that it would have been left to no less protection than pending changes, but ... anyways, I'll give you a Ping if I notice an increase in vandalism. Steel1943  (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello Steel1943: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  22:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

You've got mail!
Jackmcbarn (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Information
Hello Steel1943. I noticed this edit and wanted to tell you about the behavior switch:. Adding it anywhere on the page will force a table of contents regardless of how many section headers exist just as adding will suppress its display regardless of how many over three may exist. It may be something useful to know in the future so I thought it worth sharing. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I probably should have included this additional information in the edit notice to explain why I did the edit ... I also did it since the first section was so long, it would have forced the TOC to appear below it, and that would have been a bit tedious to others trying to skim through the page. Steel1943  (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is perfectly sound reasoning and I fully concur.Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha
Hi, Steel1943, thanks for keeping an eye on Gautama Buddha. I've pc-protected, since you requested it, but I'm not sure it's enough.CambridgeBayWeather clearly removed the semi as something of an experiment ("time to try", which I agree with). Let's give pc a try, and please let me or CBW know if it seems to need semi after all. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC).
 * Bishonen I figured that with it being protected so long an unprotect mught have worked. I guess not. User:CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), sunasuttuq 18:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely worth trying. Are you really an Inuit, Uqaqtuq? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC).
 * No, Bishonen, I'm not. Uqaqtuq is Inuinnaqtun for "talk" and sunasuttuq is the same for "what is he doing?". Sunasuttuq was the closest I could get to "contributions". Although all my kids and grandkids are Inuk. User:CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), sunasuttuq 21:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wally (given name)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wally (given name), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.artistopia.com/wally.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this was a bad tag, considering that it is content moved from Wally. Time to make a suggestion to the bot owner. Steel1943  (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you back at RfD
Nice to see you back. I haven't looked (will do after this) at what I just saw "pending block and leaving". I will tell you for one, I know you argue vigorously and intelligently and improve the encyclopaedia by doing so. I wouldn't like to count how many you "won" and I "lost" or vice versa: I would guess it is about half and half. Never known you be anything but polite, solid, point out the facts. Hard for a bloke like me to say but you are what every Wikipedian should be. Takes onion. Si Trew (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Speaking of which, I'm going to archive my entries up until October once I get access to a computer in a couple of days; that section is kind of old news. Steel1943  (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have an archive in real life. It is about five feet talle and has a balanced force by virtue – Galilleo could have told you this – of two cylindrical rotational devices at its feet. Si Trew (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Guy fawkes night cheers!
I got one of these for Hallowe'en, I don't know why but if I don't pass it on apparently there is a pox on me. So amended, but still a bit late:



Happy Guy Fawkes Night!

'''Hello Steely: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Guy Fawkes Night arson of your choice. – Si Trew Si Trew (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Spread Guy Fawkes cheer by Tarring and feathering a Roman Catholic!

I dropped some pennies


I added a couple of pics of pennies I dropped to Commons. I know not as good as a slot machine, but you might make some use of them. There's a selection of new sterling, old sterling, american one cent pennies, and a bit of euro copper Si Trew (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Si Trew, dang, much thanks! But, I'm thinking that I may have needed to be more specific; I'm looking for the 1943 variety. ;) Steel1943  (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The weirdest ones, when I used to fix computers as a bit of a sideline, a music teacher and composer had a rattling tower machine and I got six pre-decimal pennies out of it. Saved his computer but neither of us could for the life of us work out how they got in there: he had no children you know shoving things into the draws, but the CD draws etc are sealed units anyway so they wouldn't have fallen in. I suppose someone shoved them in the back as a laugh or something. The six old pennies are on the photo! Si Trew (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me Penny falls/Penny Falls doesn't exist. We do have Penny pusher as an R to section. But I was more trying to get the history of them; everyone knows what they are but there is not much info on them. About six years ago I tried to look up for patents (which would probably be called "device for receving and randomly delivering small amounts of petty cash by mechanical " or something, in the way patents are), I phoned a couple of the large slot-machine manufacturers, got on to the Patent Office and British Design Museum and the Toy Museum and so on, and got nowhere; the curators themselves said I know what you mean but I can't find anything about who invented them or when (I guess late nineteenth century). I mean it's just a couple of eccentric cams driving a shelf etc but I couldn't RS it at all. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Find the 1943 variety at 1943 steel cent! Wbm1058 (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Administrator Question
To the administrator whom this may concern,

I stumbled upon Autochecked a few minutes ago. On this page, it says that if any editor has this right, it should be removed; per this list, there is currently 1 editor who somehow received this user right. Could this be resolved? Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I have removed the right, and posted a message about it to the talk page of the administrator who gave the right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Your mass RfD nomination...
... is greatly appreciated. I know I bitched about the one title being restored, and I'm glad it's being nominated, but I didn't realize that there were quite so many similar redirects, and I definitely didn't expect them all to get nominated at once. They are all equally useless, of course, so you'll have at least one person supporting your effort to get rid of them all.

I know there's some way of configuring the wiki software to reject certain titles, so if these get deleted - fingers crossed - you might want to do whatever is needed to just prevent the creation of titles with multiple single quotes in them. The people who create pages like that are simply making a natural mistake about how wiki syntax works, but unlike most things here they can't just go back and fix their mistake, at least not in any obvious way. It's better to just prevent the mistake from having any effect in the first place.

Again, though, kudos for actually making the effort to clean things up here. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There's probably at lot more, but the ones I nominated are only the ones that specifically start with at least two apostrophes. (I was trying to get this mass nomination organized during the time I had requested that Ricky81682 restore that one specific redirect due to it not technically being eligible for WP:CSD; I'd like to see all of these go as well, but only if it's done the correct way.) And also, an alternate idea may be if my nomination passes, there should probably be a new criterion for speedy deletion for redirects that states something link "Redirects that contain wiki markup: any redirect that contains at least one instance of at least two consecutive apostrophes." Steel1943  (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would work too. Good to see I'm not the only one who wants these gone. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you are still the same editor at that IP address, but if you are, I just wanted to let you know that the creation of titles with any instance of at least two consecutive apostrophes has now been added to the English Wikipedia's title creation blacklist; see here, and I can confirm that it works (since I know that as an IP, you cannot create a page to confirm.) Steel1943  (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

All 357 redirects?
Nice to see you, haven't seen you in a while. Haven't opened that yet.

May I wish sincerely you and your family an early happy christmas since it will take me from now till then to go through them, you bastard.

Hope you're doing all right... for now.... Si Trew (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That was meant as a rather pathetic joke, I do sincerely hope you and yours are doing well and nice to see you back. Herculean task on that one you've taken on. Si Trew (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries Si Trew, I took it as so, and even chuckled a bit when I read it the first time. But I agree, preparing for that nomination took me the better part of a few hours; in related news, due to the page moves I performed in preparation for that nomination, it would seem that I created about half of those redirects. :) Steel1943  (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves/Technical requests

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequested_moves%2FTechnical_requests&diff=636498683&oldid=636498201
 * (Undid changes of "Uncontroversial" to "Unchallenged" - where was the discussion for these changes?)

Do you disagree with the changes' rationale or the replacement "Unchallenged"..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the word change since "unchallenged", to me, sounds like the request has already been assessed and has no reason to be challenged, whereas the word "uncontroversial" sounds more like an editor's bold opinion that has yet to be assessed. Also, the section "contested technical requests" seems to flow better with the previous section having the word "uncontroversial". Steel1943  (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood; thanks for explaining. It didn't occur to me at the time, but both "unchallenged" and "uncontroversial" can be read as suggesting already-assessed etc. Perhaps something using "proposed" or "submitted" might avoid these overtones..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those may be an option, though I personally prefer to remain at is due to "it being this way for so long". That, and I've seen editors in the past do renaming in those sections or even changing the hidden notes around, and it "breaks stuff". I'd say your best option if you believe that any changes should happen of the section header names, a discussion should be started on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. Steel1943  (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It may've been this way for so long, but the potential misreading only struck me recently. In the grander scheme of things, though, it's not a big deal, so I'll leave it to be noticed again sometime. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrolled right
Thanks for adding The Master and Margarita (disambiguation). Since you've been around a while and seem to know what's what, you might want to apply for the autopatrolled user right. This will prevent pages you create from appearing at Special:NewPagesFeed, saving new page patrollers some work. —Swpbtalk 21:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I wish I could, but any right-minded administrator would refuse giving me that right; I've created several disambiguation pages and redirects, but only 2 or 3 articles with content and references. Per the guidelines, redirects and disambiguation pages don't count towards the requirement for being granted this right ... but, I wish it did. Steel1943  (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hurry back!
L8RG8R –  Paine    03:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!
Merry Christmas! -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 19:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :)

Happy Holidays!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list


 * Thanks Technical 13! (I would have just clicked "thank" on the edit, but since you weren't the one who did the edit, I know you would have not received it.) Steel1943  (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey Thanks for cleaning my nominations. All those similar names left me very confused. --Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 09:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Move request for Ilz
Hello,

could you explain why you are opposed to the move request. Do you consider the river the primary topic WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ? Inwind (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I see, it's not only the primary topic; it's also the only topic. What other subject that currently has an article is also referred to as "Ilz"? Steel1943  (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see now. Either way, the discussion has been moved to Talk:Ilz by another editor. Steel1943  (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)