User talk:Display name 99/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Helpful yet undone edit to Pope Benedict XVI

Hello - did you accidentally self-revert your recent change[1] to Pope Benedict XVI? I thought the additional context in your edit was helpful, per your edit summary[2]. Just curious. --Dstone66 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Dstone66, thank you for your note. When I made the original edit, I did not realize that the background on the passage was contained not in a footnote, but in the very next paragraph. I should have added that on to my next edit summary. It was in the body of the article originally; I merely had not seen it. After reading your note and looking back over the section, I made an additional edit which I believe clarifies things further. Thank you again for inquiring. I will try to be more clear in my future edit summaries, and more careful when making the changes to begin with. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution Bank War

Please visit dispute resolution site to defend your arguments. 36hourblock (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard 36hourblock (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock, thank you. I have posted a response under the "Summary" section. Display name 99 (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Display name 99. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Buena Vista

Good catch. I spotted a vandal changing it from "Inconclusive" to "Mexican victory" and failed to notice the earlier unsupported changes. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinkbeast, thank you for the note. I hadn't looked at the article in a while and saw that the infobox said "Inconclusive". I noticed that this was in correct and changed it, later noticing other unsupported changes. Display name 99 (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI mention

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. you're perfectly innocent but it's time ANI handled it. Rjensen (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

re: calhoun

you are the one who need to "read the comments section"

we have a specific discussion going, about the lede.

i posted in it.

you are the one "not getting your way", in that conversation.

& trying to "divert" attention to a MINOR ASIDE in a discussion about a SEPARATE TOPIC is not "consensus" for your position.

particularly not when it goes against both wp & standard practices for biography-article @ wp/en.in

AND when the lede photograph of the subject, which you are trying to replace with a painting, has been the lede image of "longsstanding".

with all due respect,

Lx 121 (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Lx 121 seems to think a portrait without color is "realistic" -- common sense will tell us otherwise. Especially when the photographer 150 years ago had very pooor lights, film and lenses, and did not have a chance to take scores of shots and pick the best one like a photographer in 2016 does. Painters spent MUCH more time getting it just right, and using high quality equipment. Lx 121 does not deal with any of these issues. Rjensen (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• comment: you have pedalled that same, tired arguement, a bunch of times, in a bunch of discussions.

you have lost, & been shut down every time.

& i'm not the one who has been your harshest critic.

but, if you really, truly cannot understand the FUNDAMENTAL difference between a photographic image, & a painting, drawing. or otherwise "interpretive artwork", then i cannot help you with that anymore.

because most people can tell the difference between a photograph of a person, & a painting or a drawing of a person.

& if you cannot, then that is your problem.

go to the village pump; start an rfc about how "paintings are better than photographs", & how it relates to wp:ACCURACY & wp:NPOV, & see what that gets you?

go, do it. now.

Lx 121 (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

p.s.: your claims about how "utterly awful early photography is", are utter wp:BULLSHIT.

there are MANY, very fine early photographs. for americans, i refer you to the work of Mathew Brady & co.

it is also worth noting that color photography did not become commonplace until after world war 2. are you really going to argue your "color theory" for the presidential portraits from lincoln to fdr? not to mention every other notable historical person when do not have a color photograph for?

& in fact, a "full-plate" daguerreotype is an EXTREMELY HIGH-RESOLUTION image; because of the high-density, fine-grained silver. i would know that, because i have actually held & examined real, original period daguereotypes in real life.

cheers. Lx 121 (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Lx 121, in case you were confused, there is literally a section of the talk page called "Some Comments". It is number 12 right now. I'm not sure what "separate discussion" about the lead you could be talking about, but in that section (4th bullet) users Wehwalt and Jdcrutch convinced me to change the photograph to a painting. It had previously been suggested by Hoppyh and misunderstood by me to mean a different painting. Rjensen is, obviously, also in favor of including the current painting, as am I. That leaves 5 users in favor of the painting, and 1 in favor of the photograph. Thus, the current consensus is for the painting.

Please note that if you make one more revert I will take you to an edit-warring noticeboard. Display name 99 (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

the section discussing the lede image is right @ the top of the talkpage. i do not see how you have managed tomiss it foer so long?

& i saw one "aside" comment from you, where yo mention changing the pic, & one person saying they liked it.

how you get "consensus" to replace a longstanding PHOTOGRAPH of the subject, with an nnpov "heroic" painting, i do not know.

if you you really want to play the numbers game; let's count the person who first who added a photo of the subject, & all the editors who did not change it over the last several years?

& btw, your "crew" are the same handful of users who have lost this same arguement on every other historical biography they've tried it on.

wp favours ACCURACY & NPOV; therefore a photograph of the person is better than a painting. this is not hard to understand. EVERY BIOGRAPHY ON WIKIPEDIA uses photographs of the subject, when we have them available.

Lx 121 (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy requires color. Lx 121 has been unable to comment on this obvious point. Rjensen (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Lx 121, perhaps I simply didn't think to look for an active discussion in a thread that had been inactive for over two years. That is not unreasonable.

Take another look at the original thread that I mentioned. The original bulleted comment is from Wehwalt suggesting that I change the image. The next comment is from me saying that I would consider it. And the next is from Jdcrutch encouraging me to do so. In "Better portrait under infobox", number 8, Hoppyh suggested it originally, but I misinterpreted him. Hoppyh Wehwalt Jdcrutch=3. 3 me Rjensen=5.

Your statement that my "crew" and I always lose this battle is incorrect. It ignores the obvious example of the recent developments on the Andrew Jackson biography, where an editor not mentioned by me above reverted an edit you made changing a painting to a photograph. Currently, the lead image there is a painting. So far, you are the only editor actively engaged in trying to change these images from paintings to photographs.

Please know that I disagree with Rjensen's statement that color is required for accuracy, and I feel you did address it. Black and white portraits can be very accurate, even though they do not have color. However, it just so happens that in this case, the only photographs that we have come from the last years of Calhoun's life. The Matthew Brady portrait was taken when he was almost on the brink of death, and does not fairly portray who Calhoun was during most of his lifetime. Of the other images, we have one that is an oval, which for its shape I do not feel would fit well in the infobox, and another in a frame taken from a greater distance away. Thus, to more fairly represent the man that Calhoun was through most of his lifetime, I find the painting most suitable. Display name 99 (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

if you check the commonscat, we have a number of different portraits of the man, covering about a decade (1840-1850). some of the dating is a mess; unless the man "aged backwards", like benjamin buttons. & one of them, i'm not quite sure about the identity; though it is certainly a close resemblence. but with ~ half a dozen photographs to choose from, we should be able to agree on something.

wp graphics lab can rework an oval, or etc. into a more page-friendly format; so let's set that point aside as something that can be fixed?

as to "fairly representing the man" with the choice of lede/portrait; that is not our job. we are not here to eulogise, to capture the spirit of the man, to praise, or to condemn, or to "sum him up in one picture".

our job is accuracy.

the article is a biography, an article about a real person, a once-live human being; & our "first duty" when it comes to illustrations depicting the subject is to show: that is what this person really looked like

good or bad

& when we have actual, adequate photographs of that person, it blows away "heroic" painted portraits in terms of showing that reality.

Lx 121 (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Lx 121, Calhoun only looked that way through the last couple years of his life. That is why I feel it is not best suited for the lead. I previewed the article with the lead image being the cropped version of the photograph shown to the right, but the crop essentially zoomed in on his face too far, so that it did not look good as the lead picture.

I don't find the Healy painting to be much of a "hero" portrait either. It shows him in a rather favorable light, yes, but not ridiculously so. There have been far more dramatic and idealized portraits made of historical figures than the one being used now for this article.

I find now that I have nothing more to say regarding this subject. Current consensus is to include a painting, and so that is what we will do. Display name 99 (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Four or five

As I said at the article talk page, I don't think it would be correct to say that Hayes won less than a plurality, because that would imply someone else did receive a plurality; in reality, no one during that election received a plurality of the popular vote. Also, according to United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote, there may have been pre-1825 presidents who won with less than a plurality, and furthermore "political journalists John Fund and Sean Trende have argued that Nixon actually won the popular vote" in 1960. So, instead of "fifth" it would be better to say either "fourth" or "at least the fourth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, a plurality is defined as:

"the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority."

Tilden received more popular votes than Hayes in 1876, meaning that he won a plurality of the popular vote. In fact, Tilden won more than 50%. In 1960, Kennedy is officially listed as receiving more of the popular vote than Nixon, but we might be able to say "at least the fifth". I would also be ok with adding "since 1824" to the sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that definition of "plurality" but the rest of your comment puzzles me. You say "he won a plurality". Who is "he"? If "he" is Hayes, then you're mistaken because Hayes did not receive more than any other. If "he" is Tilden, then you're mistaken because Tilden received an absolute majority. According to the definition you quoted, a person cannot simultaneously win a plurality and an absolute majority.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, "he" is Tilden, who won more popular votes than any other candidate. Tilden won the popular vote but did not win the election. Display name 99 (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Tilden did not win a plurality. According to the definition you gave, someone who wins a plurality "does not receive an absolute majority."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I should have been more clear in my explanation. I apologize. The absolute majority that Tilden failed to win came in the Electoral College, but I can see how this would be confusing. Saying that Trump was "at least the fourth" "since 1824" should be fine. Display name 99 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Display name 99. Please also consider that, if we say "at least", then that might cover not only 1876 and 1960, but pre-1824 too. We want to be concise and not get into the weeds in the lead, so maybe "at least" would be sufficient without saying "1824". Moreover, saying "one of several presidents" might be best, because that would avoid both a specific number (which could cause recurring disputes) as well as avoiding "at least".Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I changed it to "one of only a few presidents". In doing so I avoided giving a specific number, while also indicating that the number was quite small. Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. That article has become very turbulent in the last few days, but maybe your language will eventually stick. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Calhoun

Point taken about "recentism', but it's important to include the information that Yale continues to honor Calhoun in certain ways. I've cut the sentences about the process taken to arrive at the current results as being less important than describing the current state of affairs neutrally. - Nunh-huh 04:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

OK then. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

H. R. Mcmaster

You deleted changes simply out of spite. If you carefully look at HR. McMaster's pic you will see on his right breast, two badges both of which are from the 3rd Cavalry. One regiment and the other division. After which you can go to the official US Army site to verify them. You deleted my changes on a knee jerk reaction, because you are a jerk. Such behavior is not acceptable. I suspect someone like you will say pedophilia by the Catholic church is a mental disease and therefore not a crime. Maybe you were one of those altar boys one reads about! I feel sorry for you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C7D7:E590:9044:53F6:22F6:8D82 (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC) 2602:30A:C7D7:E590:9044:53F6:22F6:8D82 (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually I deleted them because you didn't explain your changes and so it looked like vandalism. IP users, or those editing anonymously without accounts, such as yourself, often change factual information in articles simply to cause trouble. Always provide an edit summary when you change information that way people like myself won't suspect it of being vandalism. A source, or a reference to one, would be good as well. If you have not done so already, please feel free to undo my edits. Display name 99 (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for USS Princeton (1843)

An article that you have been involved in editing—USS Princeton (1843)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. RM2KX (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

For your information

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Raymond Leo Burke‎. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. For your information, we delete deadlinks in the External links section, but repair deadlinks in the body of the article. 32.218.46.93 (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Army of Tennessee

Hello, before deleting information, especially more detailed information such as locations, please provide a reason. I didn't see it as vandalism, however I reverted it so fellow visitors can get quality information. Thank you, --154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Page size

Your talk page has just gone over 100k. It is time to think about archiving the older sections. See

• Help:Archiving a talk page#Automated archival

If you do decide to auto archive and have not done so before, then just choose the defaults (cut an past to the top of this page) and see how it goes. I also suggest that you place {{archive box|auto=long|search=yes}} just above the cut and past at the top of the page for easy access to the archives.

-- PBS (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

PBS, thank you for your notice. I am placing these things on my talk page now. Should I now wait until a bot comes to archive it? Display name 99 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes they run about every 24 hours or so, sometimes longer. -- PBS (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

PBS, thanks for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI

The following discussion 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.

---

One of your edits was highlighted on Winkelvi's talk page by him for whatever reason.[3] TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, thanks. I saw that a little while ago. I think he added emphasis to the wrong part. The emphasis should have been on " if we end up back here". This shows that the only way for us "to get rid of him" would be for him to continue to harass other editors. Hopefully any admins who come by his talk page will be smart enough to figure that out. Display name 99 (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I just saw that myself and wanted to alert you. It's unfortunate. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears a consensus was reached. This comment [4], however, is a little upsetting. Apparently, Winkevi was the one being abused the whole time! Take care this was certainly one of the most divisive ANI threads I commented on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, that's usually how it goes. Winkelvi plays the victim and gets other people (especially a small group of admins) to see him as an object of sympathy, while the rest of us are demonized. O well. Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• That comment was a year ago. It seems you don't know what was going on, though I appreciate your having to dig so deeply to find something; scroll up and you'll see some of the context. I will be happy to give you a more detailed opinion of that case, but I doubt you care: note that I didn't argue against the block. If encouraging leniency, which I do frequently with editors I get along with and editors I don't, makes me unqualified to judge, then I would rather live in my world than in yours. But that you would derive from this that I am somehow unqualified to weigh in with the administrative conversation we had earlier on Winkelvi's talk page, that's quite a stretch. Au contraire, I would argue that you seem to have such a vehement personal hatred of Winkelvi that you should have been kept out of that discussion in the first place; I don't know how many edits you made pertaining to that discussion, but I could argue that one single one was enough. Moreover, you seem to have such a strong dislike of administrators ("some" of them) that, perhaps you simply aren't neutral enough to participate in such adult discussion. This entire bullshit argument of Winkelvi having friends in high places is belied immediately by the fact that one of the admins (Floquenbeam) who proposed 1R for Winkelvi (which you somehow see as a gift?) is the very admin who blocked him for a month in the discussion you point to. If you're going to accuse us of....what? nepotism? corruption? favoritism? you should at least try to make it logically convincing. And now I'm done responding to you; kindly don't ping me unless you actually need administrative assistance.

  TheGracefulSlick--"Winkelvi was the one being abused the whole time"--I know you as a pretty levelheaded editor and not one to cry abuse easily. Bbb23 is pretty levelheaded himself, and not (historically) always on Winkelvi's side in disputes: note Bbb blocked Winkelvi in the past (just like Floq did--how about that? Floq actually blocked him twice). Nor does that statement say what you make it say--that Winkelvi was subject to abuse doesn't mean that's the only thing that was going on. No matter what your personal disagreements with Winkelvi may be, and God knows he's made plenty of enemies, there is no reason for this kind of sneer.

  If Winkelvi or anyone else does blockable shit, I will block if it happens to be on my watch. If I see a reason to propose leniency for any blocked or banned editor, and that includes the person who called me a passive-aggressive cunt, I will. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel like arguing anymore either, and will refrain from responding to any of those points. We're done here. Until next time at least... Display name 99 (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2017 (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.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		for showing patience and fortitude in the face of adversity, heat and antagonism, and for being unafraid to speak truth to power.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar for Work on Calhoun

	The Original Barnstar
	For contributions to biography of John Calhoun, Well done! Hoppyh (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Esolen revert

Just self-reverted, I misread the diff with the edit summary. Thought you were removing CH from the title. Sorry for the confusion :). TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for making Gospel of Jesus' Wife a good article! MagicatthemovieS^Talk 17:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks/FYI

Thank you for starting the GA review on the 1724 conclave. Much appreciated. These are slightly related to the edits you made earlier but not enough to mention in the GA review: papal names typically redirect to the pope unless there is a secular monarch who shares the same name, so piping isn't normally needed (hopefully that will save you work in the future). The other thing is that clerics typically don't get titles in front of names in articles unless needed for clarity or disambiguation (WP shuns honourifics in general). Also, I'm too involved now to do a review of Esolen, but if you want I can provide some tips on things that need to be cleared up in regards to the academic side of his article. If you don't, then I won't impose my thoughts on you :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand the bit about redirects. It's just that I find it a bit annoying to click on an article and have it say "Redirected from" underneath the title. As for honorofics, I see nothing wrong with putting "Pope" in front of the name. It's how we name their biographies after all. In a way, "Pope" becomes more than just an honorific. It's a necessary part of the name. I'd be happy to hear any thoughts you have on the Esolen article. I've tried to include as much detail as possible based on the sources that are available, which I admit are a bit more limited than for some other articles that I've worked on. Display name 99 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Pope is normally good for the first mention since it is a regnal name rather than a given name. Cardinal Bob Smith or Cardinal Smith should generally be avoided unless it is needed for clarity, disambiguation, or grammatically awkward sentences. I'll post comments on Esolen on that articles talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

1RR at Murder of Seth Rich

With these two edits; [5] and [6] (also the one right after) you violated the 1 revert restriction on the article. Please self revert to the version by NorthbySouthBaranof. Also, in the future, refrain from making attacks in your edit summaries.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I don't understand. I didn't revert anybody. I made one edit that I knew would get reverted-but which I felt was necessary in light of the left-wing POV at the article. Another was content removal, and another content replacement. Do these count as reverts? Display name 99 (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That first edit is also a revert since it obviously changes text somebody else inserted. Replacement and removal can both be reverts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, to revert is to undo an edit somebody else made so that the article appears the way it did before. Replacing one word with another does not make the article look as it did before. It instead creates an entirely new version of the article, because the new word was not there before. The same can also be said with content removal, especially if I'm only removing part of a single edit. It's a minor redaction, but a full revert? I can't imagine that.

I will self-revert if you are able to quote a policy which adequately explains what you are saying. Also, it has to be absolute-no "can" or "may." Otherwise, I'm not going to change anything. Display name 99 (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." And note that whether it's one word or a dozen doesn't matter since it's trivially easy to alter the fundamental meaning of a piece of text just by changing a single word. And I don't really care what you do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, whatever. They're gone. Display name 99 (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

TFA nomination of John C. Calhoun

Just a note that if you want anyone to see and act upon your request at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/John C. Calhoun, you need to add it to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, otherwise it will be stuck in limbo and no-one will ever know about it... I found it by patrolling Category:Wikipedia Today's featured article pending nominations, by the way, and realised that it wasn't actually "pending"! Bencherlite^Talk 17:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Bump. Bencherlite^Talk 05:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Image of Emmanuel Macron

Another editor just put the black-and-white image back up without explanation, so I have reverted the edit and asked them to visit the talk page. In the mean time, could you tell me why we're trying to avoid black and white images? Or point me to policy guidelines on this point? I'm pretty new and this is not something I'm familiar with. Thanks. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

LacrimosaDiesIlla, there's no specific policy which requires the use of black and white images over colored ones. Generally, however, we use colored photographs if they are available as opposed to black and white photographs or paintings, because they typically provide the best representation of their subjects. Similarly, for people who lived a longer time ago, we tend to use black and white photographs if they are available instead of paintings, because they typically provide a more accurate representation. There are always exceptions. For example, for some people (see Andrew Jackson) the only photographs that are available of them show them as old, decrepit men, and thus don't represent who they were at the time they were most famous. Paintings are used instead. But for Macron, there are clearly many colored images available. And because those tend to be the best quality, those are the ones we choose. Display name 99 (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Obviously there's a difference obviously between many color images being available, and many that we can use being available. Personally, I think the B/W image of Macron is a better picture than the color one. I see why people keep trying to change back to it. We need a better color image than the one we've got. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Saint Paul Catholic Church (Ellicott City, Maryland)

I'm happy to be collaborating on Draft:Saint Paul Catholic Church (Ellicott City, Maryland) and have added some notes at Draft talk:Saint Paul Catholic Church (Ellicott City, Maryland). By the way you were correct to delete the sentence i had put in as a placeholder in the "School" section of the draft article, as I realized only later that I was confused and what I wrote in was applicable to the school for the Baltimore "Our Lady of Pompeii" church, instead. Do let's chat about development of the article and a DYK nomination for it, at its Talk page--doncram 05:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo

Hougoumont: No periods in captions unless they follow complete sentences. Do you mean full stops? -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

PBS, periods should only be used in captions after a complete sentence or to separate two fragments. If the caption consists only of a single fragment, a period is not necessary. Display name 99 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

when you write period do you mean full stop? -- PBS (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

PBS, what do you mean by "full stop?" A period shouldn't be present at the end of a fragment if there's nothing else after that, even if that counts as a full stop. But it should always be there after a full sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

See the article "full stop". You were commenting on a page written in British English, and edited by many who speak it (MOS:STRONGNAT). In British English a period does not mean "full stop". In many English schools the day is divided into periods (lessons). A young woman usually has a period one a month. Periods do not appear at the end of sentence. -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

PBS, yes, that it was I mean. I apologize for the confusion. I'm an American and am not too familiar with British English, and had literally no idea what you meant when you first wrote "full stop." But yes, that is what I mean. Display name 99 (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. -- PBS (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The Battle of Ligny is written in British English, so please don't use Americanisms in the history of the article. If you mean full stop please say so. -- PBS (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-English sources

Hi, DN99, I have the Pope Pius IX page on my watchlist, and so saw the edit summary of your most recent edit there (Non-English sources shouldn't be used on English Wikipedia.). That actually isn't true; while English-language sources are naturally preferred over others--if they're of equal quality--non-English sources are far from frowned upon, as evidenced by this section of the verifiability policy. I'm not going to revert your edit or anything; if the source wasn't actually cited in the article, it was probably fine to be removed anyway. This is just for future reference. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Writ_Keeper, thank you. I'll keep that in mind. Display name 99 (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William H. Keeler

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William H. Keeler you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyBallioni -- TonyBallioni (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William H. Keeler

The article William H. Keeler you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:William H. Keeler for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyBallioni -- TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Hi. Your recent edits on Fake news were (correctly) reverted. There might be room for them in CNN Controversies though if you believe they are a good fit for that article (I checked only the text you added, not the refs, so I'm not sure). Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox article has categories

Hey I came across your article: User:Display_name_99/sandbox that looks like a draft for an article later added to the mainspace of wikipedia. This sandbox page has categories in it and is showing up in mainspace list. Perhaps you are unaware that is prohibited per WP:USERNOCAT and additionally you aren't supposed to use your User page to hold old drafts of articles per WP:STALE. Just wanted to bring it to your attention in case you were unaware. Happy editing. Klaun (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. I just got rid of it. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Display name 99 (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi - any chance you could add more useful edit summaries explaining why you made your edit? Right now they seem to be more about your feelings about the text or whatever. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summaries at Enlil

Hello! I noticed you recently made some minor corrections to the article Enlil, amending several typographic errors I must have made while writing that article. I am glad you corrected the errors, but I noticed that, in one of your edit summaries, you commented, "This is stupidly easy. Anybody nominating for GAN should have caught this." In your next edit summary, you scoffed, "Wow," in apparent amazement at the poor quality of the article. I am the one who nominated the article, so I am mildly offended by your implication that I am "stupid" simply because I missed a few typos in the citations. In the spirit of fairness, however, I thought I would ask you if there were any more issues with the article that you might have noticed, aside from the ones you have already corrected, that might have contributed to your apparent disdain for my work. I intend to correct any problems you point out so that the prospective GA review may continue as planned. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Citations in Ledes

You should probably review Wikipedia:LEADCITE. There is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads and removing existing citations is not at all helpful. Toddst1 (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Toddst1, I've read that before. I suppose some of the citations can stay, but, when considering the second paragraph of that policy, I don't think they're all necessary. If you want to get rid of some, that would be good. But if not, I won't protest. It's not worth getting into a lengthy dispute about. Display name 99 (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun

For a variety of reasons I've decided not to run this as a TFA this month. However, Dank and I both feel that it would be appropriate for you to nominate it again at TFAR on his birthday on 18 March. Apologies for keeping you in limbo for the time being Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. People never seem to mind when we run biographies on a birthday. Thanks for shepherding this one through FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good. Display name 99 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Albigensian Crusade, without a valid reason for the removal. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Arbitrary removal of sources is not OK. Toddst1 (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Toddst1, please provide me with one good reason for why that piece of information should be cited while the rest of the lead is not cited. As it stands now, it just looks stupid. We should at least be consistent. Display name 99 (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Simple: WP:V. We don't arbitrarily remove sources for aesthetics. Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Toddst1, I'm not seeing anything about that there. Can you give me a section? Display name 99 (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

From the second paragraph of WP:V:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.

This is basic stuff. WP:V is not sacrificed for aesthetics. From WP:LEDECITE

The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

Removing existing citations from ledes is not at all helpful. Toddst1 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

None of that addresses my point. All of this is applicable only to lead information that is challenged or likely to be challenged, as it says. The sourced material in the lead is not likely to be challenged, or at least not more so than the rest of the items in the lead which are not sourced.

Per WP:Lead, citations are not required in the lead for simple facts not likely to be challenged, especially for non-BLPS such as the Albigensian Crusade article. The claim that is sourced is nothing more than a basic fact. I won't go about anymore removing information from leads verifying basic facts so long as citing such material is the consistent policy for the entire lead. But in this article, it isn't. There is also nothing about aesthetics in either quote, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. Display name 99 (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's try this a different way. How is removing reliable sources helpful? Toddst1 (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A source may be reliable, but that doesn't guarantee that it always belongs where it is in an article or in the article at all. There are several reasons. (1) There is such a thing as "citation padding," as I've heard it called, where a claim in the article that needs no more than 1 or at most 2 sources for verification is given 3 or more. This is not at all helpful.

(2) Per MOS: Lead: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." If the material is not challengeable, than redundant citations do become an issue, so presumably, you wouldn't need one. That's part of the problem here. (3) Having only one non-challengeable piece of information cited in the lead just looks dumb, because all the other non-challengeable stuff isn't cited. I chose not to fight your reverts of my edits at other page leads where information was consistently cited, even though the degree to which your actions were in agreement with the policy I quoted is a bit questionable. But when only one bit of non-challengeable information is cited, that raises the additional issue of inconsistency. Consistency between articles isn't always required, but consistency within the same article is highly encouraged if not required. Display name 99 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Toddst1, hello? Display name 99 (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi, Display 99. I see you dabble in History and Religion as indicated in your user page. I was wondering if you could take a look and make comments at my current peer review, particularly in regard to the sources and the prose's broadness. It's a very familiar subject matter, and it would be interesting to bring it to the much-coveted Good Article status. Hoping for your acceptance, SLIGHTLY^mad 04:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for all your help with the William M. Branham article. I know your review took a lot of time and effort. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Moorefield

Hello Display 99. Thank you for reviewing the Battle of Moorefield. Sorry about my pushbacks, I do that with every article. I appreciate your patience! TwoScars (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm happy to help. Display name 99 (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

NYPL

Hi Display name 99! How close do you think the New York Public Library is to GA status? I know this is out of your area of expertise, and that it needs a lot of work, but I wanted to avoid my last submission, and thought you might have some thoughts. Thanks! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eddie. I'm in my first semester of college right now, so I'm definitely a little busy. If you check my editing history, you'll notice that my contributions are fewer in the last few days than before. But I was able to take a cursory look at this, no problem at all. Here are some observations.

• The lead might be able to use another paragraph, and should definitely included the exact year in which the library is founded. I also feel like the information in the second paragraph should come first, because it describes roughly when the library was founded and its general purpose. It's more crucial than most of the stuff in the other paragraph.
• The last paragraph under "Founding" is a little bit long. Consider splitting it.
• There are definitely a lot of things in the article that are unsourced. Before submitting this as a GAN, make sure all maintenance tags ("citation needed," "verification needed," etc.) are cleaned up and that there is no claim or sentence that is not verified.
• The information in the "In popular culture" section should, in my opinion, be transferred to a separate article. Generally, presenting information in list format is discouraged in any article that is not a list itself. But in this article, there are too many items to not present in a list. So when the list of things becomes too long, it becomes appropriate to transfer the information into a separate article, which in this case could be called "Lists of references to the New York Public Library in popular culture." You can keep some of the more notable references or provide a summary of everything (making sure it's sourced, of course), but the list is so extensive now that I think we're at the point where a separate article is needed.
• I suggest an overhaul of the referencing format, sort of like what you did for the Washington Presidency article. "Lydenberg, Harry Miller (1916). "History of the New York Public Library". Bulletin of the New York Public Library. 20: 556–563." should become "Lydenberg 1916, pp. 556-563" in the inline citations, for example.

That's all I'm able to offer right now. If you want a more in depth review of the article before submitting it as a GAN, I suggest WP:Peer review. I hope this helps. Display name 99 (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anthony Esolen

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anthony Esolen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Doctorg -- Doctorg (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anthony Esolen

The article Anthony Esolen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anthony Esolen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Doctorg -- Doctorg (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Reassessment

William_M._Branham, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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.  Doctor^G  (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Thought you would be interested since you conducted the GA assessment. Doctor^G  (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute at Marcial Maciel

G'day, the to-ing and fro-ing at Marcial Maciel is unedifying. Please stop using edit summaries to discuss the issues you have with the article, and use the talk page. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, I'm rather perplexed by the purpose of your comment. Let's start with "issues [I] have with the article..." What issues? What I was doing was reverting a series of unexplained edits by an IP, all over relatively minor issues. They were minor enough that, while the edit summaries used by the IP did not always seem to fully justify 100% of the changes being made, I didn't think it was worth haggling over. Therefore, I didn't re-revert anything. This is a minor issue, and I think a week-long ban on editing the article for all non-admins was an overreaction on your part.

As I side comment, I see you left the exact same note on the IP user's talk page. What you neglected to mention is that he or she didn't use any method-talk page or edit summaries-to explain what they were doing until after I reverted them. In that case, re-reverting with an explanation seems totally acceptable, although ideally one would have been provided before.

Basically, the issue seems to have taken care of itself, to the point where I fail to see how your intervention is supposed to accomplish anything. Display name 99 (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that neither of you has used the talk page. You have the opportunity to do so now. I suggest you use it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I see your point, but you don't have to use the talk page in place of a revert. You're acting as though clicking on the revert button is not allowed unless you've already used the talk page, which is not true. Anyway, I feel no need to change or challenge anything in that article or on the talk page, so let's forget it. And you can lift the ban on the article. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 (re. your message on my talk page): I'm not sure what I would use the talk page for right now as – and Display name 99 can correct me here if I'm wrong – there are no unresolved disagreements. Assuming I am correct in that understanding, I am unclear as to on what basis WP:PP#Content disputes applies here. Provided that you stand by your decision, could you please elucidate this for us? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It appeared to me that there was a content dispute about the WP:ENGVAR being used in the article, which was being edit-warred over, as well as the infobox type, an honorific for his successor in the infobox, and the image size there too. If these matters are now not in question and there is no need for talk page discussion, given you two are the only editors involved, I'm happy to lift the protection. If you could both state that clearly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear IP, you are correct in saying that there are no unresolved disagreements. It was mostly just minor stuff that, without an edit summary, just make it look as though you were doing stuff for the heck of it and nothing more. I'm content with the current status of the article and believe protection should be lifted. Display name 99 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

With respect, Display name 99, I think it was clear that I was not "doing stuff for the heck of it". For example, in the case of my first edit, which was reverted, all it did was:

• Change {{Infobox President}} to {{Infobox officeholder}}, thus avoiding the redirect and the implication that the article's subject held the title of president (and a cursory glance at the article will show that he did not hold such a title);
• Remove "Fr." from the successor field in the infobox (and one needn't be intimately acquainted with the MOS to know that to be a clear violation of MOS:HONORIFIC and likely MOS:ABBR... and if nothing else, one would know that including such a title isn't the typical practice);
• Remove the image size from the infobox as it was clear that the image was abnormally small and, moreover, there was no rationale for a non-standard size; and
• Remove a line break that created needless white space.

One needn't an explanation to see that that edit was not "doing stuff for the heck of it" and the absence of an edit summary is no reason for a reversion in itself. That being said, I recognize that I should be including an edit summary; however, an edit summary would not have helped in that case.

And as I look over the edit history, Peacemaker67, I notice that in no case did either Display name 99 or I revert a particular change made to the article more than once. Putting aside the fact that there are no outstanding disagreements, on what basis should protection have been put in place? Would you genuinely suggest this to have been an edit war? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It was a content dispute, and your lack of edit summaries was not helping. But if you are both ok with everything now, I'll lift the protection. Play nice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Even were it able to be described as a "content dispute", that doesn't answer the question as not all content disputes warrant full protection... 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Eaton (politician)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Eaton (politician) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Eaton (politician)

The article John Eaton (politician) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:John Eaton (politician) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson]]

Hi, Dosplay name 99, I noticed your revert? Please take a look at Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width and Location: In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, |left can be used:. So, if you would go through the article you can undo your reverts accordingly. On the other hand, thank you for having noticed I inserted the word "by" into a caption without bothering to fill in the space.)  :) Lotje (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I see you fixed the problem. Display name 99 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Albigensian Crusade

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Albigensian Crusade you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Albigensian Crusade

The article Albigensian Crusade 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:Albigensian Crusade for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Albigensian Crusade

The article Albigensian Crusade you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Albigensian Crusade for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A GA Nomination

Hello! I was wondering if you could take a look at Augustus Post. Someone nominated it and, I think it is good, but would like a second opinion before I pass it, as I am very inexperienced in the Good Article area. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Display name 99. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

GA review of Muhammad in Islam

Hi Display name 99, thanks for your interest in the GA review of Muhammad in Islam. I'm extremely sorry that I was not active on Wikipedia during that time. After the nomination in December 2016, I waited for some time. Then I became busy in real life.

The issues you raised on the article's talk page have already been addressed. Will you be kind enough to resume the review? -AsceticRosé 17:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

AsceticRose, hello. I'm a freshman in college and this is finals week. In addition, I already have an article under FA review. So I'm afraid I'm rather crunched for time. I think it's best if you renominate it and let somebody else take a look. Best wishes to you. Display name 99 (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks or the suggestion. -AsceticRosé 15:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello Display Name 99! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Hello Display name 99: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Display name 99!!


Hi Display name 99, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Display name 99!

Happy New Year!

Display name 99,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Thanks!

Just a quick word of thanks for your contributions to Milhist Good Article Nomination reviewing over the last three months. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)