thanks for the edit to draft article - would you be able to move page from draft to article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanAronin (talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't think your draft meets the criteria for inclusion. It would be better to delete it. bd2412T 11:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted it. I think a case could be made for the notability of a state court judge who presided over some notable cases, and was murdered outside his own house, but I would agree that notability is marginal and don't have time to further attend to the draft. bd2412T 17:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Huh... was there any reason not to relist? When you closed it, the last post was still fresh (less than 2h old). TigraanClick here to contact me 09:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion had already been relisted once. bd2412T 11:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, yeah, but there was some activity going on, and two relists is nothing unusual at AfD. I am not saying it was wrong to close it, but relisting seems to me a superior option (worse case, no new comments come before the end of the new relist period, and the same close applies). TigraanClick here to contact me 15:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The article can, after a reasonable time, be nominated for deletion again, to the same effect. bd2412T 16:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
A page you started (Bull running) has been reviewed!edit
I suppose it is technically true that I created the page, but only as a redirect - someone else made it the article it is now. bd2412T 21:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I disagree obviously, but I will never win this one.--Wlmg (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The basis for notability is thoroughly spelled out in the guidelines. In this particular case, however, a few minutes of searching Google News hits per WP:BEFORE clearly reveals the notability of the article subject. bd2412T 13:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Note I posted the following to the user indicated, but I am going to copy this to several other users for their reference. Safiel (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
A previous edit summary of yours (User:JoeM3120) read as such, "Federal judges are nominated by the president and condfirmed by the Senate, not appointed.". Your statement is in error from both a Constitutional and statutory point of view. There are THREE Constitutional steps. 1. Nomination, when the President sends the person's name to the Senate. 2. Confirmation (i.e. advice and consent) of the Senate is given. 3. Appointment. Once the Senate consents, the President APPOINTS the person to office by granting them a commission which is evidence of their appointment. The Senate's consent does NOT put the person in office and the President can, if he wishes, decline to appoint the person once Senate consent is given. It is the act of the President in appointing (granting the commission), that actually puts the person in office, NOT the action of Senate in giving advice and consent. Therefore, appointer is the more appropriate field and all arguments to the contrary are clearly in error. Additionally, both the Constitution and all federal statutes clearly use the word appoint. I am not going to revert at this time to avoid edit warring, but I intend to push this issue further in other venues. Safiel (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree, and have posted accordingly on that editor's page. bd2412T 22:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, you are flooding watchlists and recent changes with minor cosmetic issues (your lint cleanup) - how many more of these do you plan to do? — xaosfluxTalk 20:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
About 4,000. I can have a bot do them instead, if that would relieve the flooding problem. bd2412T 20:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Please for that volume, especially if this is easily repeatable. There are several discussions related to WP:LINT cleanups going through bot talks now as well. While it is not 100% clear which lint priorities should be tackled, using bot flagged accounts have much more support that non-bot flagged accounts for that classification in general. Thank you! — xaosfluxTalk 20:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the heads up. bd2412T 20:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, Not moaning but was it really necessary for you to fix all of your sigs ? ... My entire watchlist is now filled up with your edits .... –Davey2010Talk 21:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I switched to a bot doing the task, so those edits should be hidden going forward. I was told above that my signature is "causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors", which sounds like something that needs to be fixed urgently. @Anomalocaris: Is this a problem? bd2412T 21:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
All bots still show for me (Having just looked at my watchlist I have to physically tick the box to hide them but without being funny I shouldn't have too), About 2-3 of my old sigs were using the font html however as far as I'm aware there's not any issues (Ofcourse my sig in about 5-10 years come would probably look mish mashed but it's not something I'm overly bothered about), As I said I'm not moaning but because the edit summaries go to 2 lines it kinda makes things hard to read if that makes sense, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, task stopped for now. bd2412T 22:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I was about to say to stop this unnapproved bot task from running. If you want to resume it, file a WP:BRFA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
BD2412, thank you for not only fixing your signature on this page, but working to remove lint errors it has caused in the past.
Xaosflux: Thank you for suggesting automation of the task of lint removal. But, see Headbomb's note above.
Davey2010: I believe that known lint errors should be fixed, with a few exceptions, such as where the error is used intentionally as an example of what not to do. Users with watchlists need to pay attention to the signal and ignore the noise, and saying, "Waaah! you're making a lot of noise!" is not a valid reason for someone not to improve Wikipedia. By the way, I don't know if your signature looks mish mashed, but it's not causing any lint errors.
BD2412: The obsolete font tag error is considered low priority, so I wouldn't say it's urgent. I have been notifying users of it in the hopes of reducing the creation of more lint errors. I am searching primarily for the related and high-priority Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links lint error, and while I'm about it, I often find Obsolete HTML tags, and I inform users of both. Of about 25 users that have fixed their signatures at my suggestion, as far as I know you are the first to attempt to clean up the mess globally, to which I say, thank you for your industriousness!
BD2412: I agree with Davey2010 that the edit summary doesn't need to be so long. How about something like, "edited signature to remove lint errors"?
Headbomb (cc: BD2412): You're right, bots are supposed to go through an approval process before being deployed.
I meant a sig I used from 2011-2013 were using the font thing ...., Did I ask them to stop ?, No!, I simply objected to them doing this and it's a valid objection to make, If this was article fixes then I'd bite my tongue and bear it but in my eyes flooding my watchlist for the sake of amending a sig is silly (imho), thanks. –Davey2010Talk 22:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Anomalocaris: my suggestion that if this needed to be done it should be done under a bot flag was never intended to bypass the BRFA process - just that it would only be appropriate for such a large edit run to be done via bot. — xaosfluxTalk 00:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I would have been happy to finish the entire run manually, but that seemed to cause greater watchlist problems for others. bd2412T 00:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naima Mora until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Addressed. Cheers! bd2412T 21:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I cannot overemphasize how much I appreciate your diligence as one of the best lint traps on WP. Keep up the good work!! Atsme📞📧 22:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello, BD2412. 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.
@BD2412 I am fairly new and trying to get the hang of Wikipedia rules. I saw you made some edits to a page titled Bobble Keyboard in the draft sections. Any reason pages like those stay in the draft space and not the main space? Does an experienced admin like you move them or review them?
One other question - if a page has been deleted because it was written incorrect (not as per guidelines), can it be reattempted?
Typically the edits that I make to draft pages other than my own are disambiguation fixes or fixes for common typos. This activity has no bearing on whether the draft itself is at all suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You can follow the instructions at Template:AFC submission/draft to submit a draft for review. bd2412T 22:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Now that the discussion has been closed? bd2412T 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion at Bark (botany), which you closed. I guess that you carried out the thankless task of fixing the incoming links. Narky Blert (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did. How else am I going to maintain my reputation as a miracle worker? bd2412T 20:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Why do you insist that Hecke algebra is not a disambig page? There is no single notion called the Hecke algebra. WP:DABCONCEPT, the page you linked, gives an example of a particle. A Hecke algebra is not like that; it just happened that some algebraic notions share the same name “Hecke”. —- Taku (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Are there multiple different people named "Hecke" for whom these algebraic notions are named? If not, then these terms are not ambiguous to each other in the sense that, for example, the planet "Mercury" is ambiguous to the element, "Mercury". Although you are correct that "Hecke algebra" is not a broad concept article, it is clearly a set index - a page listing related concepts rather than unrelated concepts that coincidentally share the same name. bd2412T 12:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok. I think now I see the intention behind your change. I don’t know about the standard practice in Wikipedia but as far as I’m aware, we don’t use “set index” just because there is only one mathematician. In mathematics, completely unrelated concepts can be named after the same mathematician (see List of things named after Erich Hecke). A more substantial reason to make that page a disambig page is that it’s unhelpful to have links to that page; we are forcing the readers to find the correct articles, the task that should be left to the editors. -- Taku (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, it looks like that AfD discussion has not been listed very broadly to get more input. Is that correct? Maybe doing so might be a good idea to get broader input? I was also thinking about pinging people who commented before the overhaul. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not particularly concerned. I think it will continue to draw attention due to the prominence of the subject. bd2412T 03:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I’ll let it be then, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Quick question: are you using a tool of some sort to identify IP talk pages that only have very old messages on them?
Asking because I'd be interested in finding a way to go through my Watchlist and remove, say, any IP talk pages that haven't had activity for over three months.
Thanks! DonIago (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to bounce this, but I think it may have been lost in the shuffle? DonIago (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Nothing special, I just load up a few thousand IP talk pages in AWB and set it to skip those with any year over 2010. bd2412T 12:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! DonIago (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey again BD2412, I believe most of the pages you moved links of should link to the new bridge, not the old one. Especially where it talks about transit, seeing as the old bridge is no longer being used for transit. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 19:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
A lot of them specified the bridge as having been built in 1955, or operational prior to 2017, so articles mentioning the bridge as a transit route will need to be more broadly rewritten than merely addressing the link. bd2412T 19:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
What seems to be the problem here? This is very bitey and is clearly not vandalism there was no discussion open, I thought you added the tag. You said you did not, I checked the discussion saw it was already closed so I removed the tag for Trenton tomato pie. I've engaged with you civilly, do you feel if done something which requires ANI please open a discussion. But if you want to work with me civilly please do apologize clearly I am acting in good faith. Valoemtalkcontrib 16:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
You may be acting in good faith, but you are doing so incompetently. The proposed merge of Trenton tomato pie has not been discussed; the proposal was made a few days ago. The previous merger discussion at Talk:Pizza in the United States was proposing to merge in a different article, and was made in February. As an administrator on this site, I have an obligation to curtail editors who exhibit a tendency to plunge through with erroneous actions based on misreadings of whatever situation they stumble upon. bd2412T 17:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, I believe it was equally likely Apocheir didn't open the discussion because had engaged with me and then switched to your discussion. I've seen this happen and the discussion never opened as the original editor lost interest or was engaged in discussion. Regardless, a recent proposal by an editor engaging with me instead of opening a discussion, seems to be the reasonable time to remove the template. This is competence not the opposite. I assume this isn't our first interaction, have I offended you in the past? Valoemtalkcontrib 17:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, this is our first interaction. It is frankly stunning that you removed the tag thinking I had added it. Can you show me where Apocheir engaged with you regarding this matter? I am not seeing such an engagement. bd2412T 17:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Here and he ask me for my opinion on this, this is a perfect time when two editors can discuss things without creating a huge discussion. And is this how you behave to ten year plus editors? You've used the term "incompetent" and still haven't apologized. Valoemtalkcontrib 17:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Very well then. I apologize for saying that you acted incompetently. However, that argument appears to conclude with Apocheir implementing one solution, and you reverting to a different one. There has not been a consensus there, and it is not at all clear that Trenton tomato pie is worth having a separate and independent article. bd2412T 17:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Elena, Maria. Since you had some involvement with the Elena, Maria redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Peter James (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Taken care of. Cheers! bd2412T 21:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The osprey talk page didn't get moved when the article was moved to western osprey. With your revert of the move, it appears that the extensive talk page previously associated with the article was lost. Can you recover it? Plantdrew (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the heads up. bd2412T 22:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, I authored the article you just deleted. According to Wikipedia guidelines. The article passed AfC on December 5, and was nominated for deletion December 6. According to Wikipedia's own guidelines, author's should have time to make improvements before their articles get deleted. I'd like to know your thoughts. Vampire_Squid (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
AfD discussions run for seven days, which is plenty of time to improve an article if reliable sources are abundant. In this case they were not, so the small additions made to the article in that time did not improve its claim to notability. Of course, there is no time limit for the draft, so long as it remains in progress. When you choose to submit a draft for approval, you are basically saying that it is complete enough to merit inclusion in the main article space. Any editor can propose to delete an article once it is there. Such a deletion was proposed here, and consensus was clearly in favor of deletion. bd2412T 15:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I am brand new at this. I didn't save a copy. Is there some way I can retrieve it so I can put it in draft status, and do more work on it? Or do I have to start from scratch. Vampire Squid (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I will refund it to draft for you now. bd2412T 23:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!Paine Ellsworthput'r there 17:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump judicial appointment controversiesedit
I believe an effort to merge all of these pages into the lists of appointments will follow, and that we need to marshal arguments to obtain a consensus for keeping them separate. bd2412T 03:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Cybercriminal misappropriation of Hydro Dot Net on cybercrime articleedit
Good day, may I ask whether DNS records (certified verifiable) should be accepted as cited references here at wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.231.95 (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
What would DNS records possibly be references for? bd2412T 01:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I saw that you moved the Rojava-related cantons to the regions as was proposed, thank you for getting that done! You got them all right except "Kobanî Canton" which you moved to "Kobanî Region", while the move discussed moving it to "Euphrates Region" which is the term used nowadays by the DFNS (Rojava) administration. I tried moving it myself but something has gone wrong that would require admin privileges I think. Could you fix this? AntonSamuel (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Cheers! bd2412T 01:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
BOZ (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :)
BOZ (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, and Merry Christmas to you, too! bd2412T 01:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, 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! ,
–Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
A Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night. bd2412T 18:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!
— 22:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there will be no white Christmas in the mid-Atlantic states, due to anthropogenic climate change. Nevertheless, Merry Christmas! bd2412T 22:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I see that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhodell Brewery (2nd nomination) as "redirect to Peoria Warehouse Historic District". In that case, can the talk page for the Rhodell Brewery article be redirected to the talk page for the Peoria Warehouse Historic District article, instead of being deleted? That way it would be possible to look at the old talk page, by looking at the history of the redirect. P.S. I've merged the content of the former into the latter, here. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
We generally do not redirect talk pages following a merge. I have removed the excess material regarding Rhodell Brewery; it is WP:UNDUE. The AFD closure was delete, not merge. The redirect was a courtesy. bd2412T 22:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay. If and when I get around to it, I'm going to add a new, short "Rhodell Brewery" section to the Peoria Warehouse Historic District article, with a few appropriate third-party references. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest including it as part of a section on businesses that have revitalized the District generally. I suspect that articles that mention the brewery in the context of the District will mention other businesses of importance to its development. Cheers! bd2412T 22:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
‘’Buried Loot’’ is a new page in early development. Related photos and other information and adjustments will follow. Your help is much appreciated. Have a Happy New Year! —Strudjum Strudjum (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It is helpful to provide a link to the page. bd2412T 14:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Even though AfD is "not a vote", not sure how you came up with "no consensus" for this discussion, when the clear consensus, based on policy, was delete. Might I suggest that you take another look at it? Other than the article creator, and another comprehensive response by BabbaQ, the other keep votes were simply "I agree with X". Meanwhile, only one of the delete !votes was of that type, the others were pretty specific. Regardless, hope you have a wondrous holiday. Onel5969TT me 02:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you provided a link to the discussion to which you refer here. I close a good number of AfDs. bd2412T 02:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Probably this one since I was going to ask the same thing. Consensus was obviously to delete, especially after the relisting.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
A valid case was made for keeping the article, as coverage of the event in reliable sources continued for an unusually lengthy period. Consensus is not determined merely by counting the number of keep and delete !votes, but by determining whether there is a policy argument on one side that outweighs the other. Where there is a basis in policy to keep an article, there needs to be a stronger basis, and a stronger consensus, to delete that article. I can't disregard the determination of numerous editors that the GNG is satisfied and that NOTNEWS is overcome by the extended length of time that the subject has drawn interest merely because a slightly larger number disagree with the application of rather vague standards. In short, there was a reasonable case for keeping the article and no overwhelming basis in policy or in number against that. Obviously, it was a close case, but I like to close the hard ones. bd2412T 00:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Well several editors clearly rebuffed arguments of "longevity" after the relisting. I never said this was a head count, just that you did not consider the better arguments made by those who supported deleting the article. I know most closers are stone-set on their original decision so it is pointless to argue this much further.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, I did not make a decision about the merits of the article, but about the consensus of the discussion. Disagreeing with the asserted basis of longevity is not quite the same as rebuffing it. If editors favoring deletion had demonstrated that the more recent sources were discussing a different Janie Perrin, or were merely passing mentions rather than articles substantially devoted to the topic, that would have rebuffed those arguments. If the arguments that were presented had succeeded in persuading a much stronger majority to favor deletion, then there would have been a clear consensus on the proper interpretation of the policy at issue. bd2412T 04:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
First off, I owe you a double apology BD2412... first, for not providing the link to the AfD discussion. Second, for forgetting to "watch" your talk page... so I wasn't ignoring you, had simply failed to know you had responded. Thanks, TheGracefulSlick for providing the link and making the argument for me. Guess I'll do something I don't think I've ever done and take it to WP:DRV. Hope you're both having a great holiday season. Onel5969TT me 15:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Nothing to apologize for. This is the first time I am hearing of a close being brought to DRV because the article was not deleted. I think you could just as well wait for a reasonable time, and then renominate the article for deletion with a more persuasive argument. bd2412T 15:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliaryedit
This is the fifth newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.
(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)
A demo wiki is up and running!
Dear members of WikiProject Genealogy, this will be the last newsletter for 2017, but maybe the most important one!
You can already now try out the demo for a genealogy wiki at https://tools.wmflabs.org/genealogy/wiki/Main_Page and try out the functions. You will find parts of the 18th Pharao dynasty and other records submitted by the 7 first users, and it would be great if you would add some records.
And with those great news we want to wish you a creative New Year 2018!
Hi BD2412, hope all is well for you, and wishing you a happy new year. I hope you can go easy on Elisa.rolle; this is a selfish request as I have been working with the editor since August. The editor can be stubborn sometimes, I'll help her with page moves if another problem comes up again (even though I struggle with disambiguation too). Although I think it's unlikely as the editor states that she will stop creating DAB pages altogether. Best wishes, Alex Shih (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor who wants to make page moves with broad potential for disruption should discuss first. bd2412T 18:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
