User talk:Tbhotch/Archive 19

You have new messages (last change).

{| style="background-color:#FDEE00; padding:0;" cellpadding="0" {| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#6082B6; padding:0;"
 * style="border:1px solid:#F5FFFA; background-color:#CCFF00; vertical-align:top; color:#000000;"|
 * Hello, Tbhotch! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking [[Image:Signature icon.png]] or using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! fetchcomms 04:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Latin music edit-a-thon contest
Hey Tbhotch! Great job on Rosas (song), it's one of my favorite LOVG songs. There's a competition going on at the Latin music project, if you're interested. Any music in Spanish or Portuguese goes and submissions starting from May are accepted. Erick (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I love it. We're missing hundreds of Latin American songs and our existing articles are badly shaped. Unfortunately starting the next month I won't be able to edit as consistently as I'm currently editing. I can continue collaborating with article creations and ratings others' articles but not in the intended competitive way of the edithon. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 20:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. If you'd like you can volunteer to be the judge of the competition since we technically don't have one at the moment. All you'd have to do is update the points from the submissions. On an unrelated note, have you seen List of best-selling Latin albums? I worked on it last year with other editors and thought you might want to know that it exists. Thanks again as always Tbhotch! Erick (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Response
The page WP:IUP is on states it's a policy (image-use policy), although its points about file formats obviously can't or isn't going to be enforced. As for alt= being a present parameter, it is part of the larger push to make Wikimedia projects more accessible for visually impaired readers, and MOS:ACCESS is a Wikimedia policy. Tbhotch, I came to you with recommendations that would be beneficial. Please don't be antagonistic towards me for no reason. Please assume good faith of my coming here. Thank you.  Ss  112   17:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight. Rather than taking the revert as a read and understood, you just doubled down with more unrequested Wikisplaining. Because you apparently want a real answer here it is. You are listing three things that are so trivial and have no impact to the project, so irrelevant that as you said they can't be enforced by anyone by any mean. The addition of File: adds nothing to the infobox but neither is its removal. It doesn't create lint errors or miscategorizations. It's just noise if you want to name it. So is an empty |alt=. The infobox automatically list the page to the category Category:Album articles lacking alt text for covers regardless if the parameter is there or not. As far as I can see I didn't remove it and whoever added the infobox forgot it or considered an empty parameter to be that, noise. As far as I can remember I merely removed the |border parameter to pages with non-white covers. Unless the addition of that empty parameter automatically add the alt text "album cover", you can't come and argue that the parameter is "necessary because visually impaired readers need it" because now the know what the image is about; as an empty parameter the most likely thing that would happen is that they are listening to the name of the archive. And thirdly, there are 23,000 infoboxes lacking images. I'm not going to waste way more time looking for png images or transforming them myself when unavailable solely because a page merely recommends to use png instead of jpg just because it looks slighlty better; the same page recommends to use svg on logos but I don't have the tools to recreate such images, but I'm certainly won't stop uploading such logos. Thank you for the recommendations, an equal recommendation I can give: don't give advices unless you're asked. It's disrespectful, patronizing and you don't know how people will react to them. Now, if there are things that are urgent to be fixed leave a message. (CC)  Tb hotch ™ 18:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Museo Cabeza de Juárez
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Guelatao metro station
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:3T - YoungstaCPT.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:3T - YoungstaCPT.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Colonia Federal
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Coyote en Ayuno
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"Debut album" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Debut album and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 7 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Fuente de la República
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Silvia Pinal
Hi, then how are we going to prove what has been posted on her article? TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But there are none, most of the ones you will find on the web would say she was born on Guaymas, Sonora, when she was not, and they also have her birthplace wrong, she was born on 16 September not 12, so how are we supposed to prove it? TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That one was the only one to prove it. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC: A TikToker, ..., other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?
Some of other related policies for current requested RfC discussion: WP:BLP, WP:SUSPECT, WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.

Requesting inputs about WP policies regarding,  WP:BLP protocols and naming of the accused in relation to mentions of allegations and counter allegations in the given article, against a female victim of sexual assault, her associates and also other accused.

Requesting well studied, carefully thought inputs @ RfC: A TikToker, associates, other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?

This RfC request to you has been informed to you since you have previously copy edited the concerned article.

Thanks and warm regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Statue of Sebastian de Aparicio
Hello! Hope you're doing well. I wonder if you might know of any sources/info for Statue of Sebastian de Aparicio. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The available sources discuss the temple only. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 00:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi again! So, I have a strange request. The article about me has been promoted to Good article status. After appearing on the Main Page's DYK section, another editor translated and nominated the entry for similar status at Spanish Wikipedia. I don't speak Spanish but the translation seems solid and the article looks almost identical to the English Wikipedia version. Curious if you have a moment to make sure the text looks good to you, before the nomination gets picked up for review. No worries if you're not interested. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In general, it reads OK, maybe it has a lot of uses of passive voice and impersonal passive voice, which is something the Spanish Wikipedia dislikes and recommends avoiding (it's a little hard for Latin Americans to avoid it because of the influence of the US media on language, while Spaniards are more conservative, linguistically speaking). My main concern would be that the Spanish Wikipedia is weird concerning notability. Although it has more than a million articles, most of them are in bad shape and barely indicate notability. This one, of course, meets the basic criteria here and there--which is basically the same--, but I've seen articles about influencers (and Internet people in general) being deleted solely because of that, being Internet people. PewDiePie, for example, was deleted 5 times between 2013 and 2017 and, at least the last time it was deleted, it had several sources indicating notability. The admin that deleted the page that last time, however, considered that "The case of YouTubers is clear: they create videos commenting on a particular topic and receive subscriptions from users who watch their videos via YouTube. The merit they receive is exclusively and focused on that medium. With this user, you do not see any particularity that they have done outside of it, so it is not relevant in encyclopedic terms", even though that Pie was already notable outside YouTube by 2017. I can't determine whether or not that article would survive an AFD there, hopefully, it won't be nominated, but it is something to keep in mind. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 20:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Thanks for the feedback and for making improvements to the entry! Curious to see how the nomination goes. Take care for now! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

?
err...do you know the official release is the date on us..? the article say the way, but says the release date of album- Fakesmiletoo (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant either way. We only use the earliest known date. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 23:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * but iam a huge fan of her and I SAW yours truly being released and how this is irrelevant?

- https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/ariana-grande-unveils-yours-truly-artwork-confirms-release-date-5380950/ - (try use the wayback machine) https://twitter.com/ArianaGrande/status/362667939280850945
 * If you go to the provided link you will read that the album was first released on August 30 on iTunes GB. Subsequent releases (i.e. the American release on September 3) are not relevant for the introduction of the article. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 23:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * But i have many articles, her OWN tweet, her OWN ig post saying about the 6yrs of yours truly ->being posted on sep 3rd<- . https://www.instagram.com/p/B19A8LqFQum/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

and u will keep being based on the wrong data base? because the apple music are wrong too. (says it was released on jan 1st, 2013)
 * And this is why I said "the world does not revolve around the United States". For some weird reason, Americans are the only users that frequently come to Wikipedia to "fix" release dates that are not incorrect. Yes, Ariana said that, yes, there are sources with that date. But her record label released it on a different date in a different country. What's difficult to understand about that? And of course, the iTunes link doesn't say that. This is an archived copy that clearly reads:

£8.99 Genres: Pop, Music, R&B/Soul, Dance, Contemporary R&B, Vocal, Rock Released: 30 August 2013 ℗ 2013 Universal Republic Records, a division of UMG Recordings, Inc.

Now, if you dislike the album being released on a different date than the one you know about, blame it on her record label. We only go by the earliest known, not the one where the artist comes from. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 23:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * her own label recognizes the release date on sep 3....

https://twitter.com/RepublicRecords/status/1036705640448712709

we can see the label posted the aug 30 by a mistake on itunes-
 * ...in the United States. If you don't comprehend something this basic, maybe you should read WP:Competence. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 00:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:...And Stuff - Psychostick.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:...And Stuff - Psychostick.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Antena 3.ro.png
Thanks for uploading File:Antena 3.ro.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Antimonumento +43
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Darwin Del Fabro
Hello Tbhotch I recently created Draft:Darwin Del Fabro, about a queer Brazilian singer/actor and was hoping that you or another member of WP:LGBT/PERSON would be kind enough to take a look and let me know how it could be improved. Or, if it looks ok, to move it to the mainspace. Thank you in advance for your help and consideration. 22:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Volcom95 (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Américo Villarreal Anaya
Hi. Looks like there were a couple copy-paste errors in his name, but please double check my 'corrections' are actually corrections. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg
The page is protected, I cannot edit. On line 18 there is an error: after "Forbes" there is an apostrophe. Can you fix it? 151.36.35.204 (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✔️ by another user. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 03:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Leona Lewis
The moving IP changing the nationality on this article takes no notice of other users, as you have probably noticed in the edit history, despite the fact that there is a debate in the first page of the talk page archives that came to the conclusion that "British" would be best. Even worse is their insistence that Natalie Imbruglia is English, despite the fact that she was born in Australia and only has a British passport, so it's OR to state that she is English as there is no way of proving this. But apart from page protection I'm not sure what can be done, and the IP is moving onto other pages to change nationalities as well. Richard3120 (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Not going that far, this appears to be a long-term sockpuppet. Fortunately, is a limited range. (CC)  Tb hotch ™ 03:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, nice spot, thanks. I did wonder whether a range block would be a possibility. I'm not fanatical about having the "correct" UK nationality, but it does seem to me that if there is a previous consensus or a long-standing existing nationality, it shouldn't just be changed without agreement. And the Natalie Imbruglia one is just flat out wrong. Richard3120 (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IPN Seal.png
Thanks for uploading File:IPN Seal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Glorieta de las mujeres que luchan
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Glorieta de las mujeres que luchan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Glorieta de las mujeres que luchan
The article Glorieta de las mujeres que luchan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Glorieta de las mujeres que luchan and Talk:Glorieta de las mujeres que luchan/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Glorieta de las mujeres que luchan
The article Glorieta de las mujeres que luchan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Glorieta de las mujeres que luchan for comments about the article, and Talk:Glorieta de las mujeres que luchan/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Congrats! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 06:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Tbhotch!


Happy New Year! Tbhotch, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 20:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 20:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Reverting others’ posts on user talk pages
Please engage in discussion before deleting others’ comments to your talk page. I’m open, always, to being reminded of exceptions to policy and understanding how you think they apply in this situation. Deleting my comment is inappropriate. ZsinjTalk 16:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In fact, it is not, I can as per WP:OWNTALK. I highly suggest you to not take things personal and behave as an admin if you are going to ask for such position rather than taking sides.
 * (CC) Tb hotch ™ 16:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The other editor was not blocked when you made a fourth revert. WP:3RRNO #3 is not applicable. Sorry if the warning template is abrasive. See how I engaged in discussion? My only request was to discuss in lieu of deleting my outreach. ZsinjTalk 16:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So it wasn’t obvious to me until further reviewing the history of Tulisa that the added/reverted edits were the same as those related to Long-term abuse/MariaJaydHicky. Your edit summary removing my warning did not reference the LTA, leaving me in the dark. Admins are not expected to be omnipotent, so I thank you for your patience while I understood broader context. I semi-protected the page after HJ beat me to blocking the IP. Happy editing. ZsinjTalk 16:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The user is banned. It doesn't matter if the active IP/user is blocked or not, or if it is under an SPI investigation, or if it is under an admin review, the user is evading a block and a ban and WP:3RRNO applies by itself. 3RRNO does not "activate" solely because an admin determines one of the parties is indeed a banned editor, and the banned editor doesn't get a get-out-of-the-jail card to do whatever they want solely because they have not been verified as sockpuppets or they can change their IP by simply turning off their modem or changing their physical location. That's called WP:gaming the system and Maria perfectly knows that she is gaming the system and that's why she engages in such behavior.
 * And I can explain to you in simple terms (it was simpler in my mind but I extended a little more) why I (and others) "edit-war" with this banned editor (and others who behave in the same way), because in our experience following the protocol rarely works immediately unless the admin notices it already knows Maria (or the banned editors). Banned editors wake up to edit "in good faith". They can do it for hours, days, or even months and act like normal editors, but at the moment they are caught, they go reckless because they know they have been caught and they will be blocked soon, so edit-warring starts as that's the last thing that they can do, but they want us to go down with them, because they know we have a 3RR policy, and if an unsuspecting admin believes that both parties are edit-warring for the seek of edit-warring, they will perform admin actions on both editors. Here, for example, you didn't block me, but you warned me and protected the page with no reason attached to the summary, because you were trying to figure out what was going on. Not being omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent is not a reason not to investigate further. Here I said the B-word, and the amount of content removed was exactly the same as the previous revert. The editor answering with wikilanguage further indicates that the user is not a newbie as well. Repeating ourselves with "Long-term abuse/MariaJaydHicky" (or whatever summary that indicates who the other party is) ad nauseum gives the impression that established editors must justify every single edit they perform while (apparently) new editors are free to do as they please solely because they don't "know" how we work. Experienced editors know who are truly new and those who don't. Or for example, you telling me that "Deleting [your] comment is inappropriate", which is not in itself, especially if there is nothing to discuss or justify. For this case, the page's history was crystal clear, and if you go further you can see the same issue as far as 2010/12 when Maria was just a blocked editor evading blocks; the page's protection log even going deeper on this.
 * Imagine the scenario if I had acted as the protocol indicates. Maria performs the edit, what's the next step? Is the editor adding incorrect content? No. The edit is disruptive? No. The edit is vandalism? No. The user can be reported to AIV? Not by itself and I have had AIV reports of Maria (and several banned editors) declined because a: the user has not been warned correctly (or at all), b: AIV is not SPI (even with evidence), c: the edits are not vandalism or d: I should look for dispute resolution (with a banned editor, for some reason). Meanwhile, Maria has already moved to pages 2, 3, 4 and 5. The banned editor is still editing. She knows that she might be detected soon or maybe she will not. She knows that most of her edits are reverted but she also knows that she hasn't been caught in several of her edits. I stopped editing around 2014 and when I returned in 2020 I had to go back as far as 2017 to revert several of her undetected changes.
 * Protocol option 2, SPI: For privacy reasons, Checkuser cannot confirm or deny that the person is operating the IP. Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky already has an open SPI with 4 other IPs already listed (opened 4 days ago, by the way). Why should I wait until a Checkuser decides to go to that SPI and wait for them to confirm something I already know but then decline the investigation with a "Yes, the IPs behavior is similar, but for legal reasons I cannot affirm or deny the user is the user, however, I blocked the IP to prevent further disruption" (IPs that are already assigned to another person at that point).
 * Protocol 3 and 4: RFPP and AN/ANI: RFPP is random sometimes the page is protected (indef for some reason despite it is not truly justified), sometimes it is not (Indigo (Chris Brown album) was not protected because there is was no justification at that point, despite being a common target for sockpuppetry as indicated by the history). The admin forum is random as well, sometimes admins proceed, sometimes the comment gets lost between other comments, and sometimes you are directed to the venues above.
 * What I'm trying to explain, and I'd like you to understand, is that non-admins have to excessively rely on admins who are unaware of the situation and sometimes these will unduly take a side with the new editor because #AssumeGoodFaith™ or because they don't want to review the case and engage on any admin action simply because they don't want to get in trouble if the situation was the opposite of what they thought it was. It's frustrating and tiresome, at least for me, because I have to review 5,000 pages per week. Simply saying the name of the banned editor doesn't solve the issue because she is known for accussing others of sockpuppetry as well, so that's why it is important to see the whole picture and not to stick to what the protocol says. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 20:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Mexico City Metro overpass collapse

 * Thank you so much for the copy-edit. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 16:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Aguilera (album) peer review
Hello @Tbhotch. I've placed the Aguilera (album) article up for a peer review, in hopes of eventually making it into a GA article. Could you join the discussion please? 204060baby (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Spit (album)
Spit (album) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chchcheckit (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi!
Hello, I hope you read my message, but how do you know that the article Deseo Inherente could be a hoax? I don't think a random person posted it because if you see the image it says "Sony Music Latin. All rights reserved". Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you please share the official announcement by Sony? If the anwser is anything but a link to Sony, I would recommend you not to believe everything you find on the Internet. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 01:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Cruz de Mañozca
Hi, Tbhotch! I was wondering if you might be able to create an article at English Wikipedia (even just a stub!) for es:Cruz de Mañozca? I'd prefer a Spanish speaker take a first stab at a translation. Thanks in advance for any help. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 16:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Escultura con rostro de la muerte
Thanks again for your help above! On the off chance you're interested in doing another quick translation, I'd love to see an entry for es:Escultura con rostro de la muerte at English Wikipedia, too. Either way, happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 19:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Thanks again --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Antimonumento +72
Hello, Tbhotch. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Antimonumento +72, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany
Thank you for your interest in today's featured article, British logistics in the Normandy campaign. I have a sequel up for review at Featured article candidates/British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany/archive1. If you could drop by with a few comments, this would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  02:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)