Hello, Tbhotch! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! fetchcomms04:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tbhotch. 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.
Hello, it occurs to me that we have two pages performing complementary tasks and with some minor adjustments the two could be harmonised. WP:TFAREC is the newcomer - indeed, you may not have seen it. I created it to enable TFAR nominators to see relatively quickly which similar articles had been TFA in the previous six months or so and any future scheduled TFAs. It works on a series on monthly subpages (e.g. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs/November 2014) which are transcluded into the "recents" page until their time is up, when they are then transcluded to the year's archive page. The table coding means that we don't have new tables every month, allowing sorting of columns across different months without difficulty. The topic headings follow the WP:FA topic headings as far as possible (e.g. "Warfare – Biography"), although I then subdivide further, and I also give country details where possible. As people in the past have been interested in knowing how long it takes for articles to reach TFA after promotion, I give this too, along with the method of selection to show the activity or otherwise of TFAR.
TFASTATS presents similar information - it has the date, country details, topic headings and of course page view statistics. However, the way the page is set up does not allow the columns to be sorted across different months; the topic headings do not follow WP:FA (e.g. "military" instead of "warfare", "nature" instead of "biology"); the country details use flag icons, which is perhaps unnecessary decoration; and the list of articles uses {{las}} to give links to history and talk etc, which again is perhaps unnecessary given the primary purpose of the page.
So... what do you think about a "page views" column being added to the monthly recent TFAs page, then combining the two pages? That way, the list of articles/dates/topics/countries only has to be created once, when the articles are scheduled for TFA, and all that needs to be thereafter is to add the page views? It should make it easier to keep the statistics up to date, and ease your workload (as you seem to be the primary updater of the page view statistics). Best wishes, BencherliteTalk10:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I have closed this discussion as delete, but I will be happy to restore this into your user space if you would like to keep it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Disruptive editing problem/Not asking for consensus
HI there,
I have a problem. User: Atomic Meltdown keeps on changing the Performers table without a through discussion by Film awards members and/or people who have been involved with the FLC process? Can you tell the user to please discuss first before making changes?
About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote
Hi Tbhotch. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (78th), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
featured lists
Thank you, Axel, for quality lists and articles such as List of accolades received by Up and Halo, for helping hands reviewing, fighting vandalism, updating stats, creating redirects, for images and the night spent to assemble your userboxes, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian(23 November 2010)!
At first, I really imagined that this was a ridiculous piece of vandalism. But I looked, and you're pretty experienced. So what I'm assuming here is that you're concerned that someone looking for Lad, A Dog is going to type [[Lad:A dog]] and end up on my project. Do I have that right?
If so, you should probably add a couple of additional capitalization shortcuts here, and I should probably add lad:A Dog (capital D) as well, no? StevenJ81 (talk) (administrator on ladwiki) 19:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Never mind: I found your commented-out note at the redirect. I'll add my additional shortcut with capital D over there, and using a Lua module, I've also added iw links (for the sake of the Danish article). StevenJ81 (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tbhotch, I have withdrawn from the GAR for La Gran Señora for reasons listed on the review page. Thank you for taking your time to review the article nonetheless. Erick (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I'm a bit out of my depth with all this nonsense and am now going to bed - I'm hoping that once the "rouge" pages get speedied I'll be able to move things back. I'll have a look in the morning. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I see you have been adding protection tags to various pages I have protected. You may or may not be interested, but I thought I would just let you know why I often don't do that myself. If you aren't interested, that's fine, and you don't have to read it.
I always used to add the tags myself, but then there were some occasions when I was protecting a large number of pages, all because of the same disruptive editor, which took a lot of time, and adding the time of putting the tags in sometimes made the job take more time than I had available, so that I finished up not getting all the pages protected. Because of that I took to giving tagging low priority: I would protect the pages first, and then add the tags only if I had time. There was also the fact that a bot used to add tags to any protected pages that were not tagged, so if I didn't have time to add the tags, it didn't make a lot of difference anyway. (That doesn't seem to happen any more.) Once I had got into the practice of not always adding tags, I started wondering how useful such tags were anyway. The overwhelming majority of people looking at a Wikipedia article are just reading it, not editing it, and to them the protection tag is completely irrelevant. Anyone with an established account can edit a semi-protected page anyway, so the tag is irrelevant to them. The majority of editors without established accounts probably have no idea what the little grey padlock in the corner of the page means, even if they notice it, so the tag is irrelevant to them. So we are left with what must be a very small minority out of all the people who look at the article: those who enough experience of editing Wikipedia to know what the padlock means, who do not have established account, who wish to edit the particular article in question, and who do look in the top right hand corner of the article before clicking on "edit". Such people will be able to see that the article is protected anyway, as they will see the link "View source" at the top of the page instead of "Edit". So it is really not clear to me that the tags actually serve any significant useful purpose at all. If I had never protected more than a few pages, I would probably have regarded the time it takes to tag them as negligible, but there are roughly 3300 entries in my block log over the five and a half years for which I've been an administrator, and 3000 times the time it takes to tag an article is a significant amount of time taken away from more useful tasks. I therefore now rarely do it.
None of that is any comment on your tagging the articles: I really don't mind whether you do it or not. However, I just thought you might possibly be wondering why I didn't do it, and if so you might be interested to know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Someone like You", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII17:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, Tbhotch. Recently you moved "Don't Let Go (album)" to "Don't Let Go (Jerry Garcia Band album)". You then recreated "Don't Let Go (album)" as a redirect to "Don't Let Go", a disambiguation page. That's fine -- there's another Don't Let Go album article -- but there were a number of articles that linked to "Don't Let Go (album)", so now they link to the disambiguation page instead of to the album article. I would request that you update those articles to link to "Don't Let Go (Jerry Garcia Band album)". You might know this already but you can find them by going to the "Don't Let Go" disambiguation page and clicking on What Links Here, on the left side in the Tools section. (It's only necessary to update the articles, not the user pages or Wikipedia space pages). Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk)00:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I get it now. Due to the links from the navboxes, and the server lag, you can't really see what links to the disambiguation page for some hours after the navboxes are updated -- but you were planning all along on doing the updates after that. Very good, thank you. — Mudwater (Talk)01:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing my request for a second opinion so quickly. I have already raised awareness towards the nominator of the review in order for correct the issues you have raised. Once he has done such the article will be more than suitable for a pass.
The correct version of this page is the one with all the News Media references on the bottom, and it appears that a Wikipedia Moderator called "Mad Scientist" has vandalized it! Can you please restore the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cc02:e180:706d:52dd:8bd:a04d (talk • contribs)
As a reviewer I have also decided to address some of the issues you have raised in the article, such as: References, Critical reception, Performance and Lead. If you cold take a look and cross or amend them it would be fantastic. Thank You.
On 7 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Viola Beach, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Kris Leonard, vocalist of the band Viola Beach, commented that the lyrical content of their songs was inspired by their "very grey and industrial" hometown of Warrington, Cheshire? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Viola Beach. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
As a matter of general practice, please don't close discussions with an outcome that requires action you're unable to perform. Nothing to do with your judgment or anything -- it's just unnecessary and leaves room for things to get messy, as was the case with Deep web (search) (see User talk:Anthony Appleyard, and perhaps soon WP:AN). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. "Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement". Also, that's for deletion discussions. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Gah. I guess you didn't contribute to the mess, then. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea and only creates an extra step in the process, but meh. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: as someone who has done quite a few "close as moves" on RMs recently, I actually think there is a lot of use in it. These days if I close an RM that I'm unable to move myself, I tend to list the move requests at WP:RMT, as a non-controversial move. Unlike the WP:RM backlog, which is often very long and needs more eyes on it, requests at WP:RMT tend to get actioned within half a day at the maximum - Anthony Appleyard and Philg88 in particular, are a couple of admins I've noticed that will very quickly effect moves from WP:RMT, but don't tend to close full RM requests so often. So if Tbhotch or I do a non-admin RM close, then one of those admins do the actual move, it's a net win for the encyclopedia, and a better outcome than if we just let the backlog grow ever longer until an admin was able to deal with it amongst all the other things they do. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and apologies I hadn't read the full discussion on Anthony's talk page before I wrote the above, and I can see that the Deep web thing ended up a little messy. However, I don't think that should deter us from the general principle of non-admins listing closed requests at WP:RMT. Only that the admins who process moves on that page need to understand the basic back story of the request they're being asked to carry out. In this case, Anthony should never have carried out the request to undo the move, because it was clear that the reason for its uncontroversial nature was because of the closed RM. And closed RMs are challenged by talking to the mover and going to WP:MR, not by requesting an admin to undo the move. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is an issue that comes up pretty frequently, though I've only really been involved in the discussions regarding XfD. My opinion is colored by those discussions, to be sure, but it may be the case that it doesn't directly translate -- primarily because deletion is a much more significant consequence than a move. I still tend to think that anybody closing a discussion should have the technical ability to see it through. The RfA process is as harrowing as it is because those are the people vetted for their judgment (it's a problematic process, of course, but that's a separate conversation). If there aren't enough admins doing the work, the solution is to get more admins rather than distributing tasks that require judgment to non-admins and using admins just for technical abilities. Honestly, though, I don't really want to rehash one of these threads and don't need to be convinced. I wasn't aware of the guidelines of WP:RMNAC, so my objections are sort of moot. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, let's leave it there then. And I do basically agree with you. Admin closures are clearly much better than non-admin closures. Having more properly competent admins to keep the backlog in check would be much better than the current status quo. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
SLBedit is being extremely aggressive, I would like to report him. I think he likes edit wars, but he needs to stop. He does not even try to talk, if he has a problem, he should explain what the problem is, now there is another reference, it is a sport newspaper, I am not sure why he is being so upset. I understand he is portoguese and maybe he does not like his referee being criticised, but I don't hink anything pejorative was added, just facts, supported by clear images. Jerappelle (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I put this note on SLBedit talk page regarding this edit. I am glad someone is on it. My sense is that my friend is right, can you look at it and get back to me? Thanks.
Note on SLBedit page:
Hey man, I am a registered user. I have a friend making corrections on wikipedia and asked for my help. I looked at his changes, and I agree with him. He put images from a video, they are clear as the sun, it can't get better than that. He is new and I think you are harassing him a little, be don't. Please, leave the changes, and leave him alone. If you have a problem feel free to write me, I am not here much but will check this page for the next couple of days until this is resolved. If we cannot solve it, I will ask the community to evaluate, or better, I would appreciate it if you left things the way they are and ask the community. I explained my friend that is the way things work on wikipedia, majority rules. I also told him not to make changes from my IP because I don't want to be blocked, but he said he won't. Be a big boy and leave him alone, please, or let's just ask the community but please leave his changes until they have been voted. Thanks!
Can you help with this user? I find him quite aggressive, honestly. I tried to talk to him, but he does not seem to be interest in talking. I would like to talk to him, but he seems quite upset and not interested. Jerappelle (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Tbhotch, how do I know if a YouTube video can be linked? If it says YouTube standard license, is that allowed? Jerappelle (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jerappelle:, the standard license (copyrighted) only help us to know if the videos are all rights reserved (copyrighted) or if that are released under compatible Creative Commons (CC) or Public Domain (PD) licenses (in other words, that we can upload them in Commons, for example). The way to know if someone is the copyright holder of a work, is with evidence that that uploader (YouTuber) created the video, or if that YouTuber has a license to reuse such work. In other words, if you look for, for example a football game, in YT, you will receive multiple links to that football game. In this case, you can see in the video was uploaded by SirOmarTV. His profile does not indicates he is a copyright holder of the broadcast rights of that UEFA 1980 match, that he works or worked for the UEFA, or the crew who filmed that video. That upload is unauthorized and as such Wikipedia should not use it.
On the opposite, if a person, a company, or so, has an official account, and--regardless if the license is all rights, CC or PD--the video is theirs. Take as an example this video. You may use it as a source, because UFC on Fox, a brand of FOX, has a license to use such material and/or created the material. But, you can't use a link to a video uploaded by a YouTuber named X901₩8, who decided to upload that UFC on Fox video on his own channel, because he has no rights to use it.
Please calm down. The change was listed on Wikipedia:Move review the day before.
Second, I claim it is arbitrary and cite facts to the effect. Again you misquoted my sentence that said that my opposition will not cease unless someone gives me reliable data that their answer is justified on a general consensus of the sources. I am concerned that the process fails to apply the rules of Wikipedia, mainly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and is just depending on a handful of people who say "I don't wanna change the name." If that is not ridiculous and arbitrary, then what is. Again, I am persistent with facts. Show me evidence to the contrary and the argument becomes reasonable. Apply the same rules to this entry that are touted for others, and it will be reasonable. Nobody lives or dies because the name is one or the other, but principles do matter. This is a move that repeatedly gets suggested. I did so with strong data to support to move and three guys say just "no" and the discussion is closed. Three or more people said move the title, the discussion should not have been closed, there was no consensus to close. The original move to the present title was arbitrary, no debate. Is that how we want to work in Wikipedia?
Also the please calm down, your are disruptive is silly to quote when someone argues that the decision was inappropriate based on numbers and that the change is appropriate based on data. My recommendation, is that if you wish to wade into this debate come armed with facts. I would be delighted to have you join in. Rococo1700 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey I was looking at the Nico Hines article and it looks like if a few weeks were given more articles about him will surface. And because he is a popular journalist he might have garnered articles mentioning him elsewhere that would make him worthy of a stand-alone article. I'm just bringing this up because while I do agree that the article should be deleted, I don't think it should be salted or anything like that. Just needs a little time and care put into the matter. Thoughts? 66.87.113.199 (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question. Boys' Record by VIXX is a single not an EP. The play length is too short to be an EP and it was marketed as a single. My question is was the infobox changed? Alicia leo86 (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, alright then. So it must have the EP infobox even though its a single because its US Wikipedia? How short does a single by US standards have to be? Alicia leo86 (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
That tip wouldn't work with Gaon (South Korea's music chart), all single albums, EPs and albums are listed in the albums chart. But there's also the digital chart which is for singular songs which could have all songs from a particular album chart in it. I still think Boys' Record should probably be noted as a single by your example of Ayumi's release its only three songs plus an instrumental which is excluded. Alicia leo86 (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I add a source which is a news about Real won the super cup. In fact, another source which is about 2014 super cup also belongs to this form, so I think it should be ok. Of course, if it actually doesn't meet the requirement. I can replace it later. 七战功成 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I notice that I am already be reported by you. But according to your previous message, the edit war happened at "Christiano Ronaldo" page, I didn't do any change on it and only revert another one's edit on "Gareth Bale". That also belongs to edit war? 七战功成 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dear. I have been updating Hari Moha Jha page for last 2/3 years . Please do not treat my changes as act of vandalism Suyasham (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Its not question of deleting data or evading any blockage.I have been updating it for some years and probably other user also would have been attempting to update Suyasham (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm just wondering if close sources have confirmed that JuanGa has indeed died. I'm seeing sources listing the LA coroner and his family. Erick (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I've added a "legacy and influence" section and have added you as a major updater along with two editors because you put a of work into it. Just wanted to give you a heads. Cheers! Erick (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey, sorry to bother again, but a user on the nomination suggested that it could be blurb material and just wanted to hear your two cents on the subject. Erick (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh no that's fine, I just wanted to know your opinion about the subject. Either way, I'm okay with it since it's already on the front page. Erick (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point as well. Maybe if you post that on the ITN nom, it could convince some of the other members. EDIT: Also, when you mentioned the television series ending the same day he died, it gave me an idea to expand on the article about it to make it a DYK nom. Erick (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Tbhotch. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!
Hi, thankyou for moving Li (surname 黎). While I appreciate your help, it was decided that the tone on i would not remain. Would you please be able to move this page again? Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opacitatic (talk • contribs)
When you follow me to an article I have just created and see "expand Spanish" tag, rather than sowing snarky "cite needed" on footnotes, you could add them yourself. Harrassing other editors isn't good form. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Tbhotch. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Orphaned non-free image File:Proceso Carmen Aristegui.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Proceso Carmen Aristegui.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your many contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
Tbhotch has spent his years on Wikipedia not only improving articles but also fighting vandalism and making quick clean ups to many articles. His hard work and dedication to Wikipedia should not be unrecognized. Tbhotch is one of the leading Mexican editors and he's a pleasure to work with. He has his good share of FA, GA, ITN, and DYK articles, and does a lot of maintenance work in WikiProject Mexico.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
Haha yeah, I had a different username. Decided to change it up a bit and remove my initials from my name (I was writing too many sensitive topics). Anyways, your work throughout the years has been an inspiration to me. I hope we can work on an article together some day in the future if our interests happen to align. Cheers! MX (✉ • ✎) 20:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Tbhotch. I noticed the article for Iris (Goo Goo Dolls song) was tagged by you as being within the scope of WikiProject Leona Lewis.[4] The connection is not obvious so I am asking you: how is it within that WikiProject's scope? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Cornerstonepicker removed acoustic when says "isn't a genre", however Wikipedian1818 added back with "acoustic". "Acoustic music is music that solely or primarily uses instruments that produce sound through acoustic means." 115.164.84.70 (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey Axel - thanks again for your very thorough review! I was just wondering if you might have a chance to read over my replies. I understand you're busy :) Thanks very much! — fox23:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Old Love / New Love at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)09:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tbhotch. 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.
