User talk:Atsme/Archive 49
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Atsme. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 |
Uchube
Hi. I urgently need the link to that Zoom meeting with the BoT in July. I've spent an hour going through the NPP talk page but can't find where you mentioned it, or the discussion with the Vice Chair who was posting there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Kudz here is the link. Best Atsme 💬 📧 11:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks 🥰 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Lots of Drafts
Hi. I would like your suggestions how to best help Gondolabúrguer better understand drafts, AfC, and redirecting or simply recreating his drafts again in mainspace. See their tp. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oh my. Well...first thing I would do is politely ask him if he has read WP:Articles for creation and if so, to provide a summary of his interpretation of the process. His responses will tell us where to focus. I would also suggest that he use Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/pt if not already using it, and that because of the translation issues, he needs to confine his new creations to his Sandbox until they are completed and ready to be moved into main space. Doing so will help avoid controversy and potential deletion. Hopefully, this is not going to be a DIDNTHEARTHAT or CIR issue. Atsme 💬 📧 16:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I figured your guidance would be useful. What should I do about this? The creator thinks this is suitable for publication (also see his talk page). —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, give me a few...Atsme 💬 📧 16:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm back – VersaceSpace, I'm going to invite WhatamIdoing to this discussion because I thought the article should have been marked as reviewed, tagged for copy editing, and the respective projects notified via the TP process. It certainly passes N, and there is plenty of material to expand that article. What really confuses me is this edit. While I can understand why sending it to draft puts the onus back on the article creator, this one is an easy one to fix. We have nothing that specifically dictates how it should be treated, and that is a result of the ambiguity in our PAGs that contribute to confusion and disruption that is likely to occur because of the ambiguities. I see whatever decision is made as a no-fault decision. Atsme 💬 📧 22:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'll ping Sergecross73 for his input as well —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea. I forgot to ping him. Atsme 💬 📧 22:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure where the confusion is, I redirected the album article to the artist because it was in terrible shape. I left my thoughts on the talk page. I appear to be the only one there in the last 24 hours, for some reason, despite all the discussion about it. I'm all for cleaning up a rough article, but that one needs a complete re-do. If someone writes a decent article, then I wouldn't oppose it, but the article creator often creates sloppy articles and just lets them sit there until they get redirected or deleted, so I wasn't going to hold my breath waiting for them. Sergecross73 msg me 23:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Sergecross73, my confusion stems from our NPP tutorials and the fact that we impress upon reviewers to follow the flowchart. With the latter in mind, a redirect would not have been our choice; rather, tagging and marking it reviewed would have been our direction. NPP is not exactly GA review, so we don't judge article content in that manner per WP:CONTN; however, we do make improvements when we have time as what I did by expanding the citations just before you redirected the article. The curation tool tells us it was previously draftified and moved back to main space with an inuse tag on it. As the album stood prior to your redirect, it was more likely to get attention by copyeditors and gnomes had it been tagged, marked as reviewed and left in main space. It is a notable enough topic, say for example in comparison to the NN Exorcise Tape and Demon Queen garage band, which you strongly supported to keep in main space. I did not want to revert your redirect because I was concerned it might be misconstrued as a result of our differences at the AfD, so here we are, hopefully working out a good direction for VersaceSpace, a recent NPPSCHOOL grad. There is enough material in Nylon alone to make it a decent start article with very little effort. It already has a Critical Reception section and semblance of a lead but the article is lacking material. I agree that not every album should be included simply because it exists, but this album is not even close to being the latter. It actually is noteworthy. Atsme 💬 📧 11:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- As I mention on the article talk page, the article did not actually have a reception section. There are no reviews out for the album. The "reviews" are actually just fluff quotes ripped from interviews and promotional material. Most of the material in the article is improperly attributed quotes, which is why I said it truly needs a rewrite in order to be published. It's a step further beyond just being sloppy. Sergecross73 msg me 11:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I am even more confused now considering this Billboard review, in the redirected article. And this Kerrang review, and a few others that were cited. How is that not real coverage in RS that are far more reliable than what was cited for the Exorcise Tape. Maybe my (
Buttinsky) stalkers can shed some light on this topic because what I am seeing at that article is that it just needs some copyediting and expansion. Atsme 💬 📧 14:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Both are fine RS features on Willow. They're also fundamentally not album reviews. The problem wasnt the sourcing, it was that the article was almost entirely misattributed prose. If you feel comfortable leaving completely misrepresented content in an article, I guess that's your approach. But it's not mine. VersaceSpace asked me for help because they felt it was "completely unsuitable for publication", and I agreed. After it was pulled out out of draft space on a technicality, I decided to redirect instead. All very standard stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Those are interviews, not reviews. —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Both of you, please read Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Unreleased material:
An unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns N' Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004, because it was already receiving a very large volume of reliable source coverage about Axl Rose's complicated stop-start process of making it. This generally applies to more high-profile projects, and an album should not generally have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label.'
Atsme 💬 📧 16:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)- We're not saying the subject isn't notable, though. We're saying the article as written was completely unsuitable for publication (hence the draftification as opposed to AfD). I think it's pretty much precedent at this point for NPP to draftify articles on notable topics that are just beyond poorly done. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Both of you, please read Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Unreleased material:
- I am even more confused now considering this Billboard review, in the redirected article. And this Kerrang review, and a few others that were cited. How is that not real coverage in RS that are far more reliable than what was cited for the Exorcise Tape. Maybe my (
- As I mention on the article talk page, the article did not actually have a reception section. There are no reviews out for the album. The "reviews" are actually just fluff quotes ripped from interviews and promotional material. Most of the material in the article is improperly attributed quotes, which is why I said it truly needs a rewrite in order to be published. It's a step further beyond just being sloppy. Sergecross73 msg me 11:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Sergecross73, my confusion stems from our NPP tutorials and the fact that we impress upon reviewers to follow the flowchart. With the latter in mind, a redirect would not have been our choice; rather, tagging and marking it reviewed would have been our direction. NPP is not exactly GA review, so we don't judge article content in that manner per WP:CONTN; however, we do make improvements when we have time as what I did by expanding the citations just before you redirected the article. The curation tool tells us it was previously draftified and moved back to main space with an inuse tag on it. As the album stood prior to your redirect, it was more likely to get attention by copyeditors and gnomes had it been tagged, marked as reviewed and left in main space. It is a notable enough topic, say for example in comparison to the NN Exorcise Tape and Demon Queen garage band, which you strongly supported to keep in main space. I did not want to revert your redirect because I was concerned it might be misconstrued as a result of our differences at the AfD, so here we are, hopefully working out a good direction for VersaceSpace, a recent NPPSCHOOL grad. There is enough material in Nylon alone to make it a decent start article with very little effort. It already has a Critical Reception section and semblance of a lead but the article is lacking material. I agree that not every album should be included simply because it exists, but this album is not even close to being the latter. It actually is noteworthy. Atsme 💬 📧 11:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure where the confusion is, I redirected the album article to the artist because it was in terrible shape. I left my thoughts on the talk page. I appear to be the only one there in the last 24 hours, for some reason, despite all the discussion about it. I'm all for cleaning up a rough article, but that one needs a complete re-do. If someone writes a decent article, then I wouldn't oppose it, but the article creator often creates sloppy articles and just lets them sit there until they get redirected or deleted, so I wasn't going to hold my breath waiting for them. Sergecross73 msg me 23:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea. I forgot to ping him. Atsme 💬 📧 22:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Then you tag it if it needs work or you draftify if it is merely a 1 or 2 sentence stub, or WP:MOS has been butchered. If there is misrepresented content, you fix it, or remove that content. Where in WP:R does it say to redirect an article that needs copyediting? Revert the redirect, tag the article as reviewed, and tag it, or do what you can to fix it. That is the procedure and how we handle new articles in NPP.
- There are some dupes in the refs that need to be fixed. The lead can be expanded a little, and the Critical Reception can be tightened a bit. There is no Q&A interview (v) here. Just about every article written about someone in a magazine article or eZine will include quotes from an interview (n). That is what authors and journalists do unless they are writing a book (which may or may not include an interview) or citing someone else's interview. Atsme 💬 📧 16:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I know WP:FUTUREALBUM. You're quoting something back to me that I helped write parts of. That's yet another tangent completely irrelevant to the reason why I redirected the page. Look, this isn't any different than the classic question of what people do with unsourced content. Some delete it. Some add a CN tag. Some find a source themselves. Same applies here. Some redirect shoddy articles. Some tag them. Some rewrite them. We all draw the line at different points as to when we do each scenario. I drew the line at a different place than I normally would have, and apparently differently from where you would, because I saw how the writer completely misrepresented the source material. It's as simple as that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- And I thank you over and over for all you have done to advance WP. I have made some substantial contributions as well, which includes teaching NPPSCHOOL based on NPP flowcharts and criteria that has been developed over the years by hard-working admins and editors. Again, we must agree to disagree in this particular case as we did with Exorcise Tape. Based on my experiences with WikiProject Music, I am of the mind that wider community input is needed to review the sng guidelines for albums and musicians in light of a NN album from 2013 getting as much support as what Exorcise Tape has received at AfD. I think there is a correlation between it and what NSPORT recently experienced - and I am of the mind that in order to avoid time sinks, NMUSIC needs upgrading. We are no longer dealing with the internet of the early to mid 2000s. The internet has gotten wise, and we either recognize what is happening, or we get swallowed up in it. I prefer the former with more adequate RS guidelines. Atsme 💬 📧 18:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Diffs for what you are calling misrepresentation, please? Atsme 💬 📧 20:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's all in the page history. Look at what was previously the critical reception section. The text spins quotes from pieces promoting the album's release and makes them appear as if they were statements from music critics. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- VersaceSpace, my question refers to the state of the article at the time of the redirect, and this is the state of the article at the time. Perhaps I am overlooking something I should be seeing, so please show me the misrepresentations in that state of the article. Also take a look at this edit history, and count the redirects/draftifies. Now look at this edit history for that same new article, and think about all the time that was wasted by editors on that one article. Do you still think redirects are cheap? How much effort do you think it would have taken to simply WP:FIXIT in the state that article was in before the last redirect? Atsme 💬 📧 11:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's all in the page history. Look at what was previously the critical reception section. The text spins quotes from pieces promoting the album's release and makes them appear as if they were statements from music critics. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Diffs for what you are calling misrepresentation, please? Atsme 💬 📧 20:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- And I thank you over and over for all you have done to advance WP. I have made some substantial contributions as well, which includes teaching NPPSCHOOL based on NPP flowcharts and criteria that has been developed over the years by hard-working admins and editors. Again, we must agree to disagree in this particular case as we did with Exorcise Tape. Based on my experiences with WikiProject Music, I am of the mind that wider community input is needed to review the sng guidelines for albums and musicians in light of a NN album from 2013 getting as much support as what Exorcise Tape has received at AfD. I think there is a correlation between it and what NSPORT recently experienced - and I am of the mind that in order to avoid time sinks, NMUSIC needs upgrading. We are no longer dealing with the internet of the early to mid 2000s. The internet has gotten wise, and we either recognize what is happening, or we get swallowed up in it. I prefer the former with more adequate RS guidelines. Atsme 💬 📧 18:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I know WP:FUTUREALBUM. You're quoting something back to me that I helped write parts of. That's yet another tangent completely irrelevant to the reason why I redirected the page. Look, this isn't any different than the classic question of what people do with unsourced content. Some delete it. Some add a CN tag. Some find a source themselves. Same applies here. Some redirect shoddy articles. Some tag them. Some rewrite them. We all draw the line at different points as to when we do each scenario. I drew the line at a different place than I normally would have, and apparently differently from where you would, because I saw how the writer completely misrepresented the source material. It's as simple as that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'll ping Sergecross73 for his input as well —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Favor To Ask!
Hello Atsme! It's been a crazy long time since we've interacted, so I don't blame you if you don't remember me, but no matter! I recall your efforts in the Wikipedia Equine community and thought I'd ask a favor. I'm currently doing a project in college regarding uses of literacy in a community and I thought that you'd be a great person to do an "interview" with in regards to that. (I was hoping to focus on the Equine Wikipedia community). Would you care to answer some questions for this project? We could do it over email if you'd like; if you'd rather not participate in this, (I'm happy to go over more details) then I completely understand! Please let me know, I look forward to hearing your response! Horsegeek(talk) 02:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hey there Horsegeek! It's good to hear from you! Of course I remember you, and often wondered why you, well...disappeared. The same recently happened with Dawnleelynn - poof! I now understand what happened in your case: you have far more important things to do. My response to your request is "absolutely, I'm happy to help!" Email would be the best option. Atsme 💬 📧 10:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm back. I should be active again soon. Had some issues which I think I'm about to resolve. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Atsme I went poof again. I had sent phone to Samsung. Then my password to Wiki stopped working. I needed my phone to change it. I just got it back and was ready to fix it. But when I tried to log in with my password this time, it worked. Really odd! Anyway, I should be okay now for editing for real this time. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Glad you're ok, dawnleelynn! We've got stuff going on at WP:WikiProject Dogs - you might want to check-in. Atsme 💬 📧 00:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Atsme I went poof again. I had sent phone to Samsung. Then my password to Wiki stopped working. I needed my phone to change it. I just got it back and was ready to fix it. But when I tried to log in with my password this time, it worked. Really odd! Anyway, I should be okay now for editing for real this time. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's good to see you still active and editing on here! There's quite a few users who have seemed to disappear (did you ever know what happened to White Arabian Filly?) I joined Wiki when I was 12 and I recall enjoying editing and creating articles, but of course, high school has taken up the majority of my time. College is a huge slap in the face, but we're thriving! I've sent the email to you, thank you for being so willing! Horsegeek(talk) 22:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm back. I should be active again soon. Had some issues which I think I'm about to resolve. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Horsegeek! I have not heard so much as a nicker from White Arabian Filly. She must enjoying time out in some plush green pasture somewhere. Same with Montanabw, but she got busy as a book author in RL. She checks in occasionally but it's rare. I hope to see you around a little more but not if interferes with college. We need you at Project Equine, and possibly Project Dogs if you are of the mind to get involved there, too. Anyway, I finished the interview and emailed it, so let me know if I did it right. Good luck with your project! Atsme 💬 📧 00:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oh you have answered perfectly, it's probably so much better than even what my professor would expect! Can't thank you enough for your speedy and well-thought out response! On the topic of Project Equine and Dogs, I left off on a few articles before disappearing but totally wouldn't mind dipping my toes into editing again in my spare time. Are there any ongoing projects that I can begin helping out on or anything of the like? I'm still trying to remember how to navigate around the Wiki so any pointers would be greatly appreciated! Horsegeek(talk) 02:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
September music
 |
Flowers for the dead. - Today's recommended reading: Opera in Ukraine! - 1 September: I remembered the Vespro della Beata Vergine, 2 September: the last of the Rheingau Musik Festival concerts, and yesterday we read The Story of Mr Sommer, and followed Ruth Lapide. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
a rainbow pic today, and a deer yesterday (but hard to see) - Jubilate Deo --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
the rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and this year was full of music that day, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday, a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto, and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
today, we sang old music for two choirs at church, pictured, scroll to the image of the organ of the month of the Diocese of Limburg (my perspective), and if you have time, watch the video about it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
... and today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
travel and strings sound --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
last images, - music to explore, a Ukrainian baritone first, and the new Casals Forum for chamber music is just wonderful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Quick Question
Which NPOVN discussion are you referring to in this edit? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response but here it is, Red-tailed hawk. Atsme 💬 📧 22:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Red-tailed hawk, I meant RSN, not NPOVN. *sigh* Fixed now at AfD. Atsme 💬 📧 12:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Yay NPP school!
Hi Atsme!
I saw your endorsement of IndyNotes' request for NPP and said to myself, "Wow, I wish I was as cool as that guy." I'd love to enroll in your course. I'm a new-ish editor that loves contributing here and I'd like to keep expanding my capabilities and learning more. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 18:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Borrowing from an old TV program...You Asked for It!! And so it shall be!!
I will ping you to the tutorial once I get it set up. Welcome aboard, That Coptic Guy. Atsme 💬 📧 18:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much @Atsme. I am curious, however--is this more of a self-paced thing with reviews/commentary/suggestions from you, or a deadline-based tutorial? I'm just worried that I wouldn't be able to meet deadlines seeing as I have obligations outside of Wikipedia. Definitely committed to completing the whole program, though. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 18:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- We have no deadlines on WP, and I believe in fair and reasonable, so yes to self-paced if it is reasonable, and will not require 2 months between each of the 5 sections. See my intro tutorial, read the first few paragraphs in the Welcome section, take a look around and come back and let me know if you want to continue. If you decide to move forward, I will create a tutorial page just for you! My course is a custom designed tutorial that begins with the basics. It can be fun and interesting, or tedious. Whatever it becomes will be what you make of it, and that applies to almost everything we set our goals to pursue, especially when taking on new endeavors. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 18:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I like the structure of your course and your availability for feedback. And NPP seems really cool to be honest. I'm game - let's do it! — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 19:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I will ping you from the training page after it is established. Atsme 💬 📧 19:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I like the structure of your course and your availability for feedback. And NPP seems really cool to be honest. I'm game - let's do it! — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 19:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- We have no deadlines on WP, and I believe in fair and reasonable, so yes to self-paced if it is reasonable, and will not require 2 months between each of the 5 sections. See my intro tutorial, read the first few paragraphs in the Welcome section, take a look around and come back and let me know if you want to continue. If you decide to move forward, I will create a tutorial page just for you! My course is a custom designed tutorial that begins with the basics. It can be fun and interesting, or tedious. Whatever it becomes will be what you make of it, and that applies to almost everything we set our goals to pursue, especially when taking on new endeavors. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 18:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much @Atsme. I am curious, however--is this more of a self-paced thing with reviews/commentary/suggestions from you, or a deadline-based tutorial? I'm just worried that I wouldn't be able to meet deadlines seeing as I have obligations outside of Wikipedia. Definitely committed to completing the whole program, though. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 18:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
NPP Training
I'd be interested in doing your NPP training. Nolabob (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- It would be my honor, Nolabob. I will ping you from the training page as soon as I set it up. Thank you for volunteering!! Atsme 💬 📧 16:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Good for us, Wikipedia. Good student, good teacher. We'll soon have another great reviewer. Thanks both of you for volunteering. BusterD (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- This "batch" of NPP reviewers is simply amazing!! BusterD, did you see the backlog? That's what I call a nose dive. My concern now is where I'm going to get articles for the live exercises! Atsme 💬 📧 13:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Good for us, Wikipedia. Good student, good teacher. We'll soon have another great reviewer. Thanks both of you for volunteering. BusterD (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
RE: Hope all is well
Hello, I appreciate you reaching out to me! I apologize for my delay. My interest in wiki editing tends to wax and wane so it's not uncommon for me to have prolonged inactivity. I'd say it's akin to hyperfixation; my interests rotate.
In relation to NPP, I've actually been considering for awhile asking for it's removal. I still find getting into it stifling, and while I learned a lot from your course, I'm not excited about getting into wiki-disputes if I start nominating for deletion. This has resulted in me kinda just holding the right without using it much, and that makes me feel icky. I understood that deletion processes was part of it during the course, and at the time I wanted to devote my energy to that. But after some reflection in recent months... I dunno if I do anymore.
Anyway, just wanted to update you. I responded here since I've recently archived July-September on my own talk page. I hope all is well yourself? —Sirdog (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply, Sirdog. We all go through the wax and wane; it is the nature of volunteering, a labor of love, but one that should bring more rewards than punishment. AfD can certainly feel like punishment from time to time, redirects can turn into edit wars, and the POV warriors we sometimes encounter can be a drain on one's patience; I get it. But you actually can avoid such encounters by using the filters we have available to us in the NPP queue which affords you the opportunity to review only those types of pages you feel comfortable reviewing. Every little bit helps at NPP. You might also consider joining us on Discord as it may reignite your enthusiasm.
Atsme 💬 📧 13:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hey @Sirdog. So sorry to hear that you're not having a great NPP experience. Perhaps it would help to just focus on easy accepts so that you're not going to AFD very often? You can always leave in the queue the non-notable articles, or any kind of article you don't want to review. Also, Atsme's suggestion about joining the NPP Discord is a good one. It's text live chat software that lets you "hang out" with other NPPers and can add some additional positivity to the NPP experience. Here's the NPP Discord link if you'd like to join: https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu. Please reach out to me anytime if you have questions or concerns. We are here to support you. Thanks so much. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I sort of know that feeling @Sirdog, NPP can be a bit of a drag at times and involves some wobbly/possibly unpopular judgement calls - so just echoing the hints above - Discord is a great place to ask questions, get inputs on hard cases - please also feel free to ping me or swing by my talk page if you have any hard cases you want to ask about - I'm sure Atsme and Novem would extend the same offer (and be more experienced people to ask!) but it's good to be able to share the decisions if you feel caught on knife edges - which is more common now that the NPP queue is shorter and the articles there generally take more nuanced judgement calls. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Novem Linguae Alexandermcnabb Thank you 3 for the kind words! I appreciate the advice. I've been in the NPP Discord for awhile but perhaps I'll actually make use of it moving forward, lol. For now I'll just start quite slow and see how it goes. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- I sort of know that feeling @Sirdog, NPP can be a bit of a drag at times and involves some wobbly/possibly unpopular judgement calls - so just echoing the hints above - Discord is a great place to ask questions, get inputs on hard cases - please also feel free to ping me or swing by my talk page if you have any hard cases you want to ask about - I'm sure Atsme and Novem would extend the same offer (and be more experienced people to ask!) but it's good to be able to share the decisions if you feel caught on knife edges - which is more common now that the NPP queue is shorter and the articles there generally take more nuanced judgement calls. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hey @Sirdog. So sorry to hear that you're not having a great NPP experience. Perhaps it would help to just focus on easy accepts so that you're not going to AFD very often? You can always leave in the queue the non-notable articles, or any kind of article you don't want to review. Also, Atsme's suggestion about joining the NPP Discord is a good one. It's text live chat software that lets you "hang out" with other NPPers and can add some additional positivity to the NPP experience. Here's the NPP Discord link if you'd like to join: https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu. Please reach out to me anytime if you have questions or concerns. We are here to support you. Thanks so much. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
NPP permissions request
I've gone ahead and added a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer#User:Perfect4th. Thanks for all your help and guidance! Perfect4th (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Congratulations & Happy editing, Perfect4th!!! Atsme 💬 📧 01:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Justapedia is being discussed at ANI
I assume you'd like to contribute. In fact I think you definitely should. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Doug, with all due respect, I am not about to jump into a swamp of hungry alligators, although I do commend the editors/admins who actually understand that there is nothing wrong with forking, creating off-shoots or other wikis per WP's own forking guidelines, especially when it's a project that supports other wiki projects, and is promoting objectivity and neutrality. As volunteers, what we do on our own time is our business. I am sure you are also aware that when an editor is truly objective and believes in complying with NPOV and BLP, there is no reason they cannot edit other encyclopedias, or become involved with other projects, such as the Encyclosphere, or any other off-wiki project that they believe to be part of the mission in providing free knowledge in perpetuity to the world. WP does not have an exclusive on free knowledge. Keep in mind, WP tolerates WO, and WP editors participate in both. Doc James created another Wiki project that his team controls, and I say kudos to Doc James. I have always admired Project Med's efforts, and I align closely with their principals and mission. I consider it a healthy project, no pun intended. I think Justapedia will also be a healthy project in its own right. It will utilize and support other Wikimedia Projects, and there are several, and it is within the rights the WMF has afforded others.
What the vandal Assholea did to Justapedia (which has not even been officially launched, and I have a feeling I know exactly who the vandal is), is part of the reason editors are looking for alternatives. Anybody who disagrees with WP's POV warriors is attacked and humiliated. We just witnessed it at ANI, but it goes on all the time. I have done nothing wrong, and no one deserves the treatment I have been subjected to over the years, all the while turning the other cheek, maintaining a polite posture, and doing the best I can to help build this encyclopedia. The editor(s) at ANI who launched what appears to be an all-out attack against me should be blocked for their behavior, not encouraged or ignored - BLOCKED. They have violated the Code of Conduct, and are being disruptive. Doug, I thank you for your concern, but I decline to engage for obvious reasons, such as experience in knowing what I'd be subjected to if I did. As always, I send you my best wishes...Atsme 💬 📧 12:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Atsme, just stopping by to let you know you're never out here all alone. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Already been closed as it should be... Creating a new wiki is hardwork. The site in question is barely even starting. Good to see ANI not taking the complain seriously. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- I am humbled and thankful...and at a loss for words. My sincerest thanks to the 3 of you. This is clearly the side of our community that makes it all worth while. Wishing you a beautiful weekend. Atsme 💬 📧 20:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Moreover they said that Justapedia is a far-right website. I can't check the veracity of the claim because the site is down, but if there's any, I hope that they can be rein in enough so to not prematurely taint that project. 157.92.32.83 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I am humbled and thankful...and at a loss for words. My sincerest thanks to the 3 of you. This is clearly the side of our community that makes it all worth while. Wishing you a beautiful weekend. Atsme 💬 📧 20:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Already been closed as it should be... Creating a new wiki is hardwork. The site in question is barely even starting. Good to see ANI not taking the complain seriously. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Atsme, just stopping by to let you know you're never out here all alone. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The file File:Related articles screen capture .jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused, unlinked wikipedia screenshot. No obvious use.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
NPP bugs & requests
Hi. Could you do me a favour and go through all the requests at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements, and Archive #2, and mark as 'support' any that have not been ticketed at Phab but which you think are worth doing. If you find any in the archive, you might have to unarchive them. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, Kudpung – I haven't had much free time lately. I'll try to give it a look when I get some free time. Atsme 💬 📧 02:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, it would be a great help if you could. Ms Denckelmann personally assured us in a live CAC Zoom that she is instructing Product to go ahead and arrange a first planning meeting within a few days and this will be needed. We're all a bit snowed under working in the background on all this and the WMF still does not understand that we are all volunteers and have commitments in RL (even I do although I'm a decade past retirement age). If you can do this within the next day or two it would be awesome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Novem Linguae - Can you help here? Status updates are good thru 2019 December, so I've focused on 2020-2022. I moved discussion to Tasks that need doing Thanks in advance. Atsme 💬 📧 10:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Howdy. Thanks for the ping. I replied at WT:NPPR just now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Novem Linguae - Can you help here? Status updates are good thru 2019 December, so I've focused on 2020-2022. I moved discussion to Tasks that need doing Thanks in advance. Atsme 💬 📧 10:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Draftify?
Hi, Atsme, after completing your NPP Training (thanks again for that), I was granted NPP Reviewer status and have started reviews. I came across a new article in the feed for a sporting event that has not yet taken place and has scant citations at present. I think it best that this article be moved to draftspace. How do I do this? Or does it need to first be marked AfD? I'm reluctant to nominate it for deletion because I think it will soon have suitable citations, just not yet. Thanks for the coaching! Nolabob (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- You are very welcome - you were a pleasure to work with, and thank you! Atsme 💬 📧 14:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Link? Atsme 💬 📧 14:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- 2022_Barranquilla_Open. There's also a companion new page, Barranquilla Open. Both have the same problem, in my opinion. Nolabob (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Nolabob this is one of those situations where you post a question at the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. The article creator is a long time veteran editor who has created a thousand+ articles. I would leave those 2 articles in the hands of the tennis project and let consensus make the decision; therefore, my reflexes say no to draftify. Atsme 💬 📧 21:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the advice on this. I'll leave it alone. Nolabob (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Nolabob this is one of those situations where you post a question at the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. The article creator is a long time veteran editor who has created a thousand+ articles. I would leave those 2 articles in the hands of the tennis project and let consensus make the decision; therefore, my reflexes say no to draftify. Atsme 💬 📧 21:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- 2022_Barranquilla_Open. There's also a companion new page, Barranquilla Open. Both have the same problem, in my opinion. Nolabob (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Hope you are well
Hope all is well.
I just posted an appeal to my topic ban at the administrators noticeboard. You were supportive in my last appeal, and I would appreciate if you could share your rationale for having done so in the discussion of my current appeal. Perhaps even review my latest appeal and consider sharing whether or not you would again support lifting my topic ban.
Best wishes. SecretName101 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't recall any user by that name. Email me so I will know who I supported. Atsme 💬 📧 18:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Autopatrolled?
In the NPP New Pages Feed, what does it mean when a new page is "autopatrolled"? Should an NPP Reviewer still review these? Thanks! Nolabob (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Good morning, Nolabob. Autopatrolled indicates the editor has been granted the user right by an administrator. It is not necessary for us to review those articles, but if you suspect noncompliance with WP:PAG, then it is best to begin a polite discussion with the article creator and simply mention what concerns you. If you suspect PE, I recommend checking the user's TP for the proper disclosure and possibly their edit history to see if this is a recurring problem, or it's just a one-time thing. We don't want PE/UPE editors with autopatrolled rights who are being noncompliant. Hope that helps. Atsme 💬 📧 11:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
October music
 |
Today we sang the choral concert of the year, Verdi's Requiem with an interesting band of marimba, piano, horn, bass, timpani and drum (pictured). I thought of Sibylle. - Seeing a pic I took on the Main felt good. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
new day, another pictured DYK (but not pictured by me this time): look at power work tensions (if you translate) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
today's DYK: two facts from the two concert of this years Rheingau Musik Festival I liked best, both a cappella singing. If you follow the songs, you see a circus, where I performed singing, and in the end the whole tent joined for Dona nobis pacem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
who shall separate us --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
leaving the month with reformation and a cat treat --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, and three things
Hey Atsme! Wanted to pop in and say hi! Life has been busy lately, so I have had less time to edit as of late. Still around, though. Really proud of the NPP team for getting the backlog down to zero. I am still really grateful for your NPPS course. I learned a lot and had fun while doing it! I figured I would partially return the favor:
In this edit, I fixed a bunch of WP:LINT errors on this page (I am leaving this message in the same edit to avoid a double ping). <center> has been deprecated in HTML 5, which means that web browsers might stop supporting it at any time. When they do so, it will look as if nowiki tags had been applied:
<center>this should be centered</center>
I also happened across Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/School/Graduates/Atsme when looking through all the NPR pages (I like Wikiarchaeology!). By a strange coincidence, last week I discovered {{Date table sorting}}, which allows for dates to be sorted correctly in a table (Jan, Feb, March... instead of April, August, December...). You also do not need to use {{noping}}, because you are not including your username in the edit. I did not make either change myself because it feels like editing your comments, which I am not a huge fan of (Lint is different). Cheers, HouseBlastertalk 03:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- It is so good to hear from you, HouseBlaster!! Thank you so much for cleaning up my lint – it is greatly appreciated – and please feel free to fix the dates! I will use the diffs for future reference whenever I forget the "new way". Also, thank you for the noping reminder which was a big "duh" for me because it is something I should have known. Is it possible to be too busy to think? Atsme 💬 📧 15:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- I fixed some more lint I introduced last night. I probably shouldn't try to do that sort of thing right before I go to bed...
Facepalm . You are totally welcome—it is the least I could do after your stellar NPPS course. I went ahead and edited the table. The template is actually pretty easy to use: instead of writing 2022 June 1, you pass them as arguments in the exact same order: {{date table sorting|2022|June|1}}. Great to talk to you! HouseBlastertalk 20:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- I fixed some more lint I introduced last night. I probably shouldn't try to do that sort of thing right before I go to bed...
Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
NPP Training Request
Hello, I would like to be considered for NPP training. Back in 2014, I was a patroller with the associated rights (with an old account, password lost). I'm sure lots has changed since I was last active in this space and I've forgotten a lot, so I'd really appreciate it if you could teach me a bit. Let me know! Styx & Stones (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Styx & Stones! I'll be happy to help refresh your memory & NPP skills so you can ease back in the groove of editing. Give me a bit of time to set-up the course, and I will ping you from that page. Atsme 💬 📧 13:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. Styx (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| While I haven’t interacted with you in a while, I wanted to say thank you for the help you provide at NPP and NPPSCHOOL (the best school on Wikipedia IMO). I hope you have a great day and that you continue doing your things at NPP. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 18:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC) |
Awww...that was so kind of you to say, Zippybonzo!! It was my absolute pleasure and honor to tutor you as a student who has mountains of potential to be whatever they want to be if they set their mind to it as you have demonstrated. Keep up the good work!! 🤗 Atsme 💬 📧 16:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
November thanks
 |
Thank you for improving articles in November while I was on vacation. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving! Bach said it in music for peace --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Opera and Advent choral music on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I thought this might interest you. I came across this article, and was immediately struck by how one-sided and negatively tilted it was. I am of a mind to bring some balance here, but it could probably use a lot of eyes and a lot of hands. BD2412 T 03:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I do appreciate the offer because we collaborate well together, and I truly enjoy working with you. Under normal circumstances I would not hesitate to take you up on such an offer. Perhaps when the dust settles...but in today's political climate, WP's neutrality and objectivity have been thrown to the wind by a hegemonic consensus. We lost the advantage of neutrality/objectivity back in 2017 or so. I don't think it's worth the anguish to even attempt to fix that article during the peak of an election. The sad part about WP's lack of objectivity is that the types of articles that are written like the one you just mentioned, actually drive more traffic to those sites than away from them. We've lost half of our readers because they simply don't look to WP for unbiased, factual information. Sure, they'll read other stuff in WP...just look at the top 25...what does that tell us? And look what's #1 – you gotta love the fact that the monarchy appointed the PM...and they think the US is screwed up? Atsme 💬 📧 22:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I am certainly not expecting that anything will be done with this article prior to the election, but I think afterwards, when partisan interest has evaporated, some improvement can be achieved. Cheers! BD2412 T 10:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- I have made a few improvements, mostly in the way of layout and wording tweaks. We'll see if anyone else pitches in. BD2412 T 17:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Contentious topics procedure adopted
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.
The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.
The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.
This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.
For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted
New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022
Hello Atsme,
Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.
Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.
Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.
Suggestions:
- There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
- Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
- Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
- This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.
Backlog:
Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!
- Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Belle Meade, Tennessee
You seem to be something of a custodian for the Belle Meade, Tennessee page. If so, I want to advise you that neither Montgomery Bell Academy nor Vince and Amy Gill's house are actually located in Belle Meade, though both are certainly nearby. You may have the :WP:RS|reliable sources at hand to validate this; I presently do not but know this to be the case. 2600:1004:B11B:107A:3D1E:3521:1016:2612 (talk) 2600:1004:B11B:107A:3D1E:3521:1016:2612 (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Fyi
See discussion at Talk:Thoroughbred#Infobox_Image. Montanabw(talk) 18:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Glacier National Park number of visitors "averaged" over one year?
Hello, In your edit Revision as of 15:52, 2 January 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)&oldid=997856825 it seems you changed a phrase that averaged the annual number of visitors over ten years to an "average" over one year ("averaged about 3.5 million visitors in 2019"). Was this your intent? Polebridge (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's too far back for me to remember what or why I did something in a single edit, so please send the diff of the actual edit you're asking about, not the entire article. Atsme 💬 📧 20:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Courtesy diff provided [1]. You provided the source so this should be easy for them to verify. --ARoseWolf 20:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, ARoseWolf. @Polebridge–if I got it right it was my intent, if I got it wrong, I have no clue what might have happened. I'll just ping MONGO since he is much better at math and park stats than I am. Feel free do whatever needs to be done to improve the article. Atsme 💬 📧 21:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, ARoseWolf. @Polebridge–if I got it right it was my intent, if I got it wrong, I have no clue what might have happened.
- (talk page watcher) Courtesy diff provided [1]. You provided the source so this should be easy for them to verify. --ARoseWolf 20:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
NCHA articles
Hi Atsme. What's going on with the NCHA articles? dawnleelynn(talk) 21:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Dawnleelyn!! Are you talking about the 6 prods by the IP, or is there more that I haven't seen? Atsme 💬 📧 21:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi! I've only seen four so far. The one on Marian's Girl and the Horse Hall of Fame ones (three of those). I'll let you know if I see any others. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 21:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I looked at your contribs and saw three more. aha dawnleelynn(talk) 21:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi! I've only seen four so far. The one on Marian's Girl and the Horse Hall of Fame ones (three of those). I'll let you know if I see any others. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 21:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I need help with photos
I would like your opinion on a photograph I have clipped but I cannot send it through Wikimail and don't want to upload it without an assessment.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
SusunW (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, SusunW - I sent you my email addy so you can send directly. Atsme 💬 📧 16:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! SusunW (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)