| Revision as of 18:09, 4 November 2024 editRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,127 editsm Notice of discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboardTag: Twinkle← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:36, 25 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,838 editsm Archiving 2 discussions to User talk:Zxcvbnm/Archive 8. (BOT) | ||
| (23 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| {{Usertalk}} | {{Usertalk}} | ||
| ==DYK for Feelie (Brave New World)== | |||
| == BLUDGEON == | |||
| {{ivmbox | |||
| |image = Updated DYK query.svg | |||
| |imagesize=40px | |||
| |text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that ] developed his "''']'''" in response to the emergence of "]"?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ]. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>(], )</small>, and the hook may be added to ] after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ]. | |||
| }}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> ] ] 00:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Splitting content of Super Valis IV from Valis IV into its own article == | |||
| Per your talk page comments at ], I figured I'd just ask you this here directly than on the talk page so as to avoid any confusion with my intentions. Though I disagree with your assessment of my actions as BLUDGEONING, I do understand that this may end up being a point of confusion in the future should I keep my current behavior up. As a result, would you be willing to provide advice in terms of my argumentation style in order to improve on this? While you're the only one who's acknowledged it so far, I figure it may be better to just try and nip this in the bud now so as to make sure it doesn't become a problem later. ] (]) 12:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hey there! How are you doing? Look, i noticed that you were responsible for splitting content of SNES Dracula X into its own article. I want to suggest you splitting content of Super Valis IV that is in Valis IV into its own article, since both the PC Engine and SNES versions are entirely different games, kinda like what happened with Rondo of Blood and SNES Dracula X. I could do it if i knew how to split said content into its own stand-alone article so i figured why not ask for help. Anyways, take care and have a good day! ] (]) 00:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :From what I've seen, your replies are often incredibly long, sometimes multiple times as long as what you're responding to. This might be not be your intent, but it comes off as trying to force your opinion by arguing the person into capitulation. I wouldn't want to engage, because I'd probably get bombarded with another textual wall, but the sheer size disparity makes my argument seem weak in comparison even if it's more powerful. I tend to avoid replying to most people in nominations I do, unless I feel they have made an abject error I have to correct. Even then, I try to be as brief as possible so it feels like a correction rather than attempting to override their views. | |||
| :See ], a nomination I made that is still going on and you are welcome to contribute to. Right now it's split between Merge and Keep but my responses were rather short and literally only to point out something I believe was incorrect, such as the lack of a policy based reason for keeping. | |||
| :In your response to Oinkers in the Ruby and Sapphire discussion, I think saying something like "multiple reviewers said the game was too similar to bother buying, so please state the major changes that will merit an article" would be equally as effective in far less text. Though if he does then answer with things that have merit, even that could potentially backfire. ] (]) 12:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] I tend to give long answers primarily because I wish to address multiple points of a discussion and make sure nothing is misconstrued with my own. I see your point, though, that it seems imposing. I do worry shorter answers may result in ignorance to part of an argument, which may backfire or lead to a more drawn-out discussion, which is primarily why I write longer. Using the current merge discussion as an example, I feel strongly that the plot and gameplay are not large enough to warrant the page split, but I worry that if I make that point shorter, it will lead to confusion as to exactly what I'm arguing. Do you have any advice for how to shorten messages while still making sure I don't cause further confusion in a debate? ] (]) 17:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I guess you could try to anticipate potential counterarguments and pre-empt them in the nomination rather than having to explain after the fact? | |||
| :::"Oppose because I don't agree it's the same game" is probably the most predictable counterargument there is. The evidence presented to the contrary, "the game has identical plot and gameplay to Ruby and Sapphire", is outright false. The plot is different, and so is the gameplay in some ways. There needed to be a more indepth analysis of the similarities and differences than vague and inaccurate assertions being thrown out to justify a merge, which you had already mocked up, making it feel like you were looking more for a rubber-stamp than consensus. ] (]) 17:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] Y'know, I somehow hadn't actually considered that this was how my argument was actually coming out. I thought I had covered my points concisely, but looking back, you're definitely right in that I didn't clarify my points well enough. Would you suggest leaving some form of clarifying comment and then stepping back from that discussion to avoid overstepping my stay? In terms of that discussion, at least, I do want to avoid stepping into BLUDGEON territory, so I do want to check with you if you feel that is too much, or if I should just let the discussion run its course. | |||
| ::::A sort of related question: I have seen similar kinds of "clarification comments" on other discussions, typically after several oppose votes, which outline the nom's position without going into individual replies. Would you suggest trying to use those while more sparingly utilizing individual replies, in the future? | |||
| ::::As an aside, thank you for the advice thus far. I do apologize if I've caused some problems with both this and the current merge discussion, but I do greatly appreciate you pointing out how best to improve on these problems. | |||
| ::::Edit for clarity since I realize I forgot to respond to this: I don't intend to make it seem like I'm looking for a stamp or anything with the visualizers, as I intend only to use them in cases where I feel a visual benefits a complicated merge. What would you suggest in this regard? I feel they're helpful but I don't want to make my points seem more antagonistic by using them. | |||
| ::::] (]) 21:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have no problem with a mockup at all, it definitely helps, I think it's just a factor of my issues with the rest of the nomination. If you want my full thoughts, I'll go over it sentence by sentence to explain my reasoning: | |||
| :::::''In a similar case to the merge discussion for Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass, these two articles have considerable overlap.'' | |||
| :::::This immediately compares it to a different subject that may not even be similar. Sword and Shield Expansion Pass is not a totally separate "remaster" like Emerald is, and is only tacked on to the original title as an additional DLC. | |||
| :::::''Outside of some release information and some minor expansions on specific elements, the game has identical plot and gameplay to Ruby and Sapphire, with both of these elements being better covered at the main article.'' | |||
| :::::As I said, the plot and gameplay, while similar, are not identical. I could also call Uncharted 2 similar to Uncharted 3 with gameplay besides a few minor changes, but they have their own articles. | |||
| :::::''In a similar vein to Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow, Emerald can easily be covered at the Ruby and Sapphire article...'' | |||
| :::::This makes it about whether it COULD be covered rather than whether it SHOULD be covered there, which is the intent of the discussion. Many things can easily be talked about in other articles, but merging wouldn't necessarily be warranted. The arguments you made beforehand about WHY are not very strong, first comparing it to an article about an expansion, not a separate game, and then something misleading. | |||
| :::::''I believe these articles are better off merged'' | |||
| :::::You never explain why exactly this wouldn't be just moving around deck chairs. How is the reader confused heavily by the status quo, exactly? Is there something in the Emerald article that can throw people off? I think it's pretty stable and isn't broken. ] (]) 05:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@] so you would suggest sort of re-emphasizing the exact points to have a stronger argument? (I.e, gameplay is not that different because so and such...) I intended to use the comparisons to show precedence to my points, though in the way you're phrasing it, perhaps taking more direct examples would benefit that? (Yellow was merged because so and such, and Emerald suffers from the exact same problems...) | |||
| ::::::] (]) 11:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|KGRAMR}} There isn't enough content for a split here, it basically needs a new article from scratch. I'd suggest simply making a new article if you want it to exist. The reception can technically be split off, but only when there's enough content in the rest of the article to justify doing so. ] (]) 00:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review == | |||
| == Category:Body horror video games == | |||
| Hi there! The trial of the <strong>RfA discussion-only period</strong> passed at ] has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at ''']'''. Cheers, and happy editing! ] (]) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Theleekycauldron@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikiped8-ia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Mailing_list&oldid=1223231383 --> | |||
| Hi, you were the driving force behind keeping ] a few months ago (see ]). I recently took on implementing the decided purge and quickly looked at every page in that category (and its subcats), and not a single one mentions the term "body horror" (NB: ] says {{tq|... the choices made by the player affect the narrative and visual design..., generally along the lines of eldritch or body horror}}, but the term is not used in the cited sources). This, paired with the fact that afaics, every page in this cat was added to it by the same user (], who also created the cat) on the same day (1 June 2024), made me think that the deletion rationale ({{tq|entirely original research}}) was mostly accurate, but that's not why I'm writing this message. I'm bringing it up, because while I'm happy to add it to articles if I find a source for it (to avoid removing the category), I'm not sure how I would add the "body horror" aspect to a video game article, even if I found sources supporting body horror as a defining characteristic, and I thought since you're a member of ] (and participated in the deletion discussion), I'd ask you (I hope that's alright). | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello, Zxcvbnm, | |||
| I'm not that familiar with video game article guidelines, but as far as I understand, body horror is not one of the ] that ] states one should use (and for example, ] also says that the infobox {{tq|should not include thematic genres (like science fiction, horror, etc.)}}). WP:VG/GENRE also states: {{tq|Simply borrowing parts of a genre does not necessarily make the game of that genre, and instead can be said to be using elements of that genre in the lead and gameplay prose.}} Let's say that is the case, how would you mention/integrate "body horror" in an article (as I don't know what common phrasings for this sort of thing are in video game articles; e.g., would you just say something to the effect of "The game uses body horror elements." somewhere in those sections)? To provide a more specific hypothetical, how what would you add it to the article ] (this is one of the two games for which you gave in the deletion discussion; the article is currently in the cat but doesn't cite this specific source or use the term), assuming that you'd consider it a defining characteristic? I'd appreciate your input on this, thanks! ] (]) 22:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think this discussion qualified for a SNOW closure. Typical cases I have seen close as SNOW Keeps have around 8-12 Keep votes and no Deletes. This discussion had only 4 editors arguing for Keeping this article so it falls short. I'm not going to revert your closure because I'm pretty sure that this article would have been Kept any way if the discussion had run a full 7 days and reverting the closure would be pointless bureaucracy. But you should raise the bar on what you believe qualifies as a SNOW, it's more than 4 votes of support. This distinction can become an issue if the closure is contested and is brought to ] which can be an unpleasant experience, not only for admins but also for NACs. I appreciate you helping as an uninvolved editor but be sure you are familiar with ]. Thank you and have a great weekend. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Top AfC Editor== | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:top;" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| :I would have !voted Keep if I did not close the discussion, so that technically makes 5 people. But I get it, the threshold is way higher than I assume. I will let an admin close any AfD discussion because I rarely see any get to 8+ keep votes in the video game realm unless it's a troll attempt... ] (]) 17:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: center; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In 2024 you were one of the , thank you! --] (]) 14:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == |
== Merry Christmas! == | ||
| <div style="border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);; float: left; margin-top: 3px; background-color: #CD0412; border: 1px solid #0F6E02; padding: 10px; width: 425px; clear: both;"> | |||
| I am taking this discussion here, as in retrospect I feel the AfD itself isn't the best avenue to discuss it now that I'm not blowing a fuse. But to be frank, you have become seen as a "boogeyman" of sorts when it comes to working on character articles, and I seriously don't think that's your intention. But we have reached a point where long established editors will say in other outlets such as discord they worry you may AfD a subject they've started on and have even been discouraged from approaching a subject entirely because "Zx will probably AfD it and I don't need that stress." And we should not be dreading PresN's new article list to bring such upon works as if you're some ]. | |||
| <div style="border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);; border-style:solid; border-color:#0C8703; background-color:#CD0412; border-width:5px; text-align:left; padding:18px;" class="plainlinks" valign="top" width: 300px;> ]<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color:white"> ]] ] ] ] ] ] ] (] ] ]).</span><br /><br /> | |||
| '''<span style="color: white; margin-bottom: 0.3em; font-size: 116%; border-bottom: medium none; font-weight: bold; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em;">Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year</span>''' | |||
| That's ultimately detrimental to a project, especially when editors feel they have produced something high quality that meets wikipedia's standards they're familiar with, and your approach may come across as seeing it as low. I do feel AfD and even BLAR-ing have a place on wikipedia as valuable tools. But if we're seeing established editors will multiple works under their belt are working on a subject shouldn't we be having a discussion first, not to "feel out an AfD" but to make sure neither party is looking at a topic wrong? This has been an ongoing subject, and I'm definitely trying to approach this as one longtime editor to another, feeling these are common courtesies you would expect. ] (]) 18:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <p><span style="color:white">This greeting (and season) promotes ] </span></p></div> <br /> | |||
| <span style="color:white">Spread the ] by adding '''<nowiki>{{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}}</nowiki>''' 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 ] in this message!</span></div></div> | |||
| :If you really think I'm a bogeyman, than I can certainly leave. But, I'm not sure if you really want that. Like a CEO who fires anyone who disagrees with them, being surrounded by an echo chamber isn't great when it comes to decision making. | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| :Still, I get that my sudden AfDs have caused no small amount of consternation. I will keep that in mind and try to discuss first to make sure I'm not missing something. At the very least it would strengthen my argument were I to still do one. ] (]) 21:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| — 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC) ]] 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I appreciate that. By no means do I want you to leave the project, and while we don't always see eye to eye you do some good work of your own. | |||
| ::Right now project wise we're trying to get a lot of Pokemon articles done to figure out an eventual Good Topic for the things, even with the aforementioned sense of caution. No sense in doing one only to get sideswiped by some article we didn't fully research after all and then having to rush to GAN, after all. And given I put together three articles here recently off found sources (Meltan, Pinsir and Kleavor) it's valid to worry. | |||
| ::How are you feeling about what's out there right now? Should there be any concerns?--] (]) 22:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Pinsir - its notability is unclear to me, though I think Beckett's Guide and IGN are the strongest sources. Even if I randomly saw it, I wouldn't have AfD'd it without asking, especially because it's such an older Pokemon. However, do you think there is another source on their level that isn't a listicle? I'm not convinced the one about "Kawaii Pinsir", while funny, is actually SIGCOV. | |||
| :::Meltan - despite relying a lot on content farm sources, I'd probably give it a "weak keep" if it were ever AfD'd. I do feel like it toes the line of ] due to it not having an appearance as a character with a personality, as with some other Poke's such as Butterfree. But the Variety article helps with that by establishing some importance to the game's popularity. | |||
| :::P.S. I wasn't aware of the Good Topic push so I can see why it would have angered you. I'll keep that in mind when I see many Pokemon articles being created. ] (]) 22:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Appreciate it. Regarding Kawaii Pinsir, I think that one's just in the body, I agree it's not really SIGCOV so I avoided it for reception. But you do feel the Taiwanese website and '']'' don't work? The latter is basically Japan's Washington Post, complete with me having to buy a subscription just to read it to cite.--] (]) 22:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::With regards to the Taiwanese website, do you mean ZhaiZhai News? Because it seems very tiny... | |||
| :::::You'd have to demonstrate the contents of The Mainichi because it could be the make or break one here. It's literally impossible to tell from the blurb. ] (]) 23:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Fair on ZhaiZhai. As for the Mainichi, that one's a big hard to archive or show because of the paywall. Unlike say the Washington Post or Wired it completely hides most of the article unless you're logged in.--] (]) 23:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Randomly noticed topic via {{TPS}}, but if I may... you can always use the <code>|quote=</code> parameter in a citation, and hopefully people ]. Regarding the paid access to ''Mainichi Shimbun'' more specifically, though, consider using ]. Your local library may provide digital access with just a library card. You'd have to know the date of the issue (assuming it's published in the actual newspaper) to find the article, though. I'm not sure of the newspaper-specific search function capabilities provided. ] (]) 23:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Zxcvbnm. Let me know what you have in mind as far as "enough to justify a separate standalone article on the topic" here. Seems comparable in scope to that of '']'' from the same developers, currently uncontested. Thanks ] (]) 20:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :For the record, I also think that Tomb Raider IV–VI Remastered is not enough for a standalone article. I'm not the designated article patroller or merger though, so I may decide to take on one article and not another. You can't just point at a newly created, also unsuitable article and say "well they made it so mine must be fine". That's not how it works, see ]. ] (]) 21:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is there a designated article patroller or merger to refer to? Coherency is useful, if you prefer to cast it along the lines of "well they made it so neither must be fine". ] (]) 22:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, there is New Page Patrol, but they don't really check for whether a page overlaps with another page. So I think what I meant to say is, "it's best to understand what should and shouldn't be there and why" rather than pointing at some other page that didn't happen to be merged (yet). ] (]) 02:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == My Draft about Backyard Baseball 2001 == | |||
| Thank you for giving me suggestions on reliable sources for reviews! I kept looking for some and I was so desperate to get the page submitted because of the acceptance of the '']'' page and the fact that ''Backyard Baseball 2001'' is getting released on ]. When I didn't find any reliable sources for reviews, I kind of gave up. Well, I'll keep working on my draft page to make sure it's acceptable to Misplaced Pages's standards and thank you for correcting my mistakes. ] (]) 14:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem. I legit want to see articles pass, but if it lacks the right sources, it might just end up deleted, so it's best to make sure everything is up to par beforehand such that it has zero chance of being removed. ] (]) 15:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Exactly. ] (]) 19:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice of noticeboard discussion== | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:AN-notice--> ] (]) 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:36, 25 December 2024
 Archives | ||||||||
Index
|
||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zxcvbnm. |
DYK for Feelie (Brave New World)
On 4 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Feelie (Brave New World), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Aldous Huxley developed his "feelies" in response to the emergence of "talkies"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Feelie (Brave New World). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Feelie (Brave New World)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Splitting content of Super Valis IV from Valis IV into its own article
Hey there! How are you doing? Look, i noticed that you were responsible for splitting content of SNES Dracula X into its own article. I want to suggest you splitting content of Super Valis IV that is in Valis IV into its own article, since both the PC Engine and SNES versions are entirely different games, kinda like what happened with Rondo of Blood and SNES Dracula X. I could do it if i knew how to split said content into its own stand-alone article so i figured why not ask for help. Anyways, take care and have a good day! Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @KGRAMR: There isn't enough content for a split here, it basically needs a new article from scratch. I'd suggest simply making a new article if you want it to exist. The reception can technically be split off, but only when there's enough content in the rest of the article to justify doing so. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Category:Body horror video games
Hi, you were the driving force behind keeping Category:Body horror video games a few months ago (see deletion discussion). I recently took on implementing the decided purge and quickly looked at every page in that category (and its subcats), and not a single one mentions the term "body horror" (NB: one says ... the choices made by the player affect the narrative and visual design..., generally along the lines of eldritch or body horror
, but the term is not used in the cited sources). This, paired with the fact that afaics, every page in this cat was added to it by the same user (Latiromazzaire, who also created the cat) on the same day (1 June 2024), made me think that the deletion rationale (entirely original research
) was mostly accurate, but that's not why I'm writing this message. I'm bringing it up, because while I'm happy to add it to articles if I find a source for it (to avoid removing the category), I'm not sure how I would add the "body horror" aspect to a video game article, even if I found sources supporting body horror as a defining characteristic, and I thought since you're a member of WP:VG (and participated in the deletion discussion), I'd ask you (I hope that's alright).
I'm not that familiar with video game article guidelines, but as far as I understand, body horror is not one of the standard video game genres that WP:VG/GENRE states one should use (and for example, Template:Infobox video game also says that the infobox should not include thematic genres (like science fiction, horror, etc.)
). WP:VG/GENRE also states: Simply borrowing parts of a genre does not necessarily make the game of that genre, and instead can be said to be using elements of that genre in the lead and gameplay prose.
Let's say that is the case, how would you mention/integrate "body horror" in an article (as I don't know what common phrasings for this sort of thing are in video game articles; e.g., would you just say something to the effect of "The game uses body horror elements." somewhere in those sections)? To provide a more specific hypothetical, how what would you add it to the article Zoochosis (video game) (this is one of the two games for which you gave a source in the deletion discussion; the article is currently in the cat but doesn't cite this specific source or use the term), assuming that you'd consider it a defining characteristic? I'd appreciate your input on this, thanks! Felida (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Top AfC Editor
|
The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor | |
| In 2024 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas!
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
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!
— 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC) CaptainGalaxy 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)