User talk:Laser brain/Archive 8

Hi, Laser brain. Regarding this, I'm letting you know that a similar case, seen here and here, was tackled by JBW. As seen in that latter link, I've noted that there have been meatpuppetry issues when it comes to Jackson fans at the Jackson articles. Just as I was suspicious of Partytemple, I've been suspicious of Isaacsorry. And, oddly, the Partytemple account hasn't been editing lately. If that account starts editing soon after this post of mine, that's also something to consider. It will signal to me that this post was likely seen by Partytemple or other Jackson fans. As seen in here, one CheckUer (Berean Hunter) has previously looked into possible sockpuppetry regarding the Jackson fan editors. While no sockpuppetry has yet been identified, the meatpuppetry is obvious.

No need to ping me if you reply. I'll check back for replies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

So I watched you promote ... and tried to distill it down to User:Ealdgyth/FAC tasks. Does that look right? Should we be updating Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests or are we leaving that for the nominators? @Ian Rose and SandyGeorgia:. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:FAS is a monthly chore, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, running a manual check on the number of FAs bi-annually ... maybe add that to list so it is not forgotten ... I always did that at FA and FFA and always found errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

ah ha ! I found a link to my deleted FA work page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ucucha/FAC_coordination ... you can use your admin tools to see what was in there and maybe move Ucucha somewhere ... sorry typing from ipad on my way to a funeral, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Looks accurate! I update the image and source check requests if I promote promote or archive something that's still there. Some nominators proactively place things there, and sometimes Ian or I do it. --Laser brain (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. When I nominated, I hoped for TFA Christmas 2019, but that is scheduled. No real urgeny therefore, but people may like the topic more right now than in July in a potential second round, and to get the article as good as can be for Christmas is a also a goal. How about archiving after Christmas if nothing happens? I don't want to push reviewers, it's a busy season. I began a little article in memory of Brian, about a song ("let me go into your peace") we learned on Monday, and I made it a red link on Monday, and learned that he died the next day. "Jauchzet" (rejoice) is hard to do in the circumstances, but the text continues "verbannet die Klage" which can mean both "ban complaining" and "ban lamentation", - always a good idea, not only for Christmas and funeral. Perhaps I should expand that aspect. We'll sing the song on Sunday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for what you did for the Clara Schumann article! It's open for peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Jauchzet, frohlocket! - This is a command to rejoice, as a group. We have a working redirect, in which the exclamation mark transfers the "command" character even to someone not reading German. Francis Schonken insists to mention the redirect without the "!" in the hatnote. I miss Brian explaining with hopes, and will temporarily unwatch. Best wishes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi - dropping this on you because you already commented on the user's talk page. They seem incapable of understanding that their unsourced and peculiar additions are unsuitable. I suggest we should be heading for a short block here, whether for CIR or to drive home the fact that they have a talk page. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that you have twice deleted a page about the music band Adamlar. Recently, I translated the Turkish version of this article, which you can view here. Do you still think more reliable sources are needed to indicate the subject's notability or are the ones that already in use sufficient enough? Keivan.f^Talk 06:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: The problem, which still exists now, is there is no assertion of how the band meets Wikipedia:Notability (music). There is really only one independent source cited in the article. There are thousands of bands out there who release music and our job is to assert and prove how they meet Wikipedia's more stringent notability criteria. I wouldn't say the article does that, in its current form. --Laser brain (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

As you can see, I'm not dead. But before I attempt another FAC for Sathi Leelavathi next month, I intend to resolve your comments. You said the article "needs significant work to be FA quality prose", but you gave comments relating to only one section: Music. How can I solve a problem without knowing what it is? If you won't tell me, never mind. All I can do is, submit it to the GOCE for the third time, and only hope for impressive results. I wonder if that mail I sent you about me being blocked had any effect after all. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I did get your email and the archiving in this case was about the article not being ready, not necessarily about the fact that you were blocked. I gave a few examples as is customary for the FAC process. --Laser brain (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You have warned this editor for making very extensive and unnecessary changes in articles, especially in the lead section. This editor is still doing the same thing as before. Here's the edits just recently [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. And it doesn't help that other editors have to clean up after them [7], [8], [9]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: A report will probably need to be filed at WP:AE for discretionary sanctions to be applied to him for disruptive editing in the Michael Jackson topic area. I don't know that I'll have time to do it today. Among the problematic edits mentioned should be his continuing to push his preferred genre changes at the main Jackson page despite failing to gain consensus for them on the Talk page. And any history of edit warring at the various sub-articles. He's been warned numerous times but continues to delete the warnings from this Talk page and continue anyway. Pinging Isaacsorry as a courtesy. --Laser brain (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have gone to the Michael Jackson talk page and have just seen that you did reply but this did not come up in my alerts so I was totally unaware of this. I changed the genres as an administrator (I believe it was isento) told me that if you get no reply, then it means that the subject matter is not really important and you can go ahead with the edits (paraphrasing). As your reply didn't come up in my alerts - meaning I assumed that no one replied to my regards about Jackson's genres - I changed the genres based on my understanding of what the administrator told me. Also, since when are you not allowed to blank warnings? I read them and am aware of them. TheAmazingPeanuts, you clearly not read the edit summary or thoroughly looked at my edits - if you did, you would have seen that most of those were either additional significant information, corrections, removal of insignificant information, or reverts from unsourced genres e.g. Bad. Isaacsorry (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacsorry: That's poor advice, whoever gave it to you, especially since you know your changes are disputed. It's your responsibility to monitor discussions that you start and not continue to edit war on the assumption that no one has an issue with your edits. At this point you have feedback from multiple editors that your editing is problematic, and you continue to shrug your shoulders and continue on. You are, of course, allowed to delete warnings from your Talk page. The problem is that you don't seem to understand them or adjust your editing habits accordingly. --Laser brain (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I was told about edit warring (which I got into with TheAmazingPeanuts on My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy) and have not got into an edit war since that warning/advice. Also, I find it both amusing and confusing TheAmazingPeanuts is making me look like some sort of vandaliser or offering no improved edits even though he kept the caption that I added in My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy about its x-rated cover. Just saying. Isaacsorry (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacsorry: I wouldn't have a problem with you if your edits wasn't so questionable. I been keeping an eye on your contributions for several days now and I haven't seen improvements on your editing. For example, in the Dangerous article another editor Akhiljaxxn was trying to get the article in good article status but your problematic editing was getting in the way. That's why Akhiljaxxn revert your edits in the first place, he said it right here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that was my mistake - I did not know that's why Akhiljaxxn reverted. I also didn't receive his comment in my alerts. Anyway, has it come across your mind that newer users may be more naive, you know? How long have you been on Wikipedia in comparison to me? Were there times where you received warnings or blocks? Isaacsorry (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacsorry: Admittedly I made some mistakes myself in the past, but the problem is when another editor has to tell you to stop making problematic edits in your talk page, it's best to fellow their device. Not by doing the same thing as before. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

1) your two edits are contradictory because in one article (John Lennon) the Quarry Men were founded in 1957 and in the Quarrymen article in November 1956. Therefore edits have to be done.

2) Why do you claim that the source is not reliable, after all this source claims to be the official site of the Quarrymen ? The only source I know, giving a date (March 1957) is "The Art & Music of John Lennon" by John Robertson (a pseudonym, Peter Doggett apparently) in the first pages (don't have my book to hand to give the precise page).

Possibly this date comes from "The Beatles Live!: The Ultimate Reference Book" by Mark Lewisohn. Can't confirm it because I haven't bought this Lewisohn's book (have bought Lewisohn's "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions ..." 30 years ago).

3) In the previous version, the date was November 1956 but though sourced there was no indication of the date in that source.

In conclusion, there must coherence between both articles :

either late summer of 1956 (the Quarrymen site)

or November 1956 (though I don't find any source)

or March 1957 (Doggett or Lewisohn)

but certainly not November 1956 in one article and 1957 in the other one.

So I will reverse your edits to have coherent dates in both articles.

If you consider that Peter Doggett (or Lewisohn ?) is more reliable than the Quarrymen Website

then I see no problem to change late summer of 1956 into March 1957 but please keep identical dates in both articles. Thank you.--Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Carlo Colussi: There were two issues: One was the reliability of the source you cited and the other was the consistency of dates. I think the latter has been ironed out. The John Lennon article was adjusted for consistency with the Quarrymen article. The web source you cited is not reliable. The site may have some connection with Colin Hanton who appears to still be trying to make money with the Quarrymen name, but we should defer to published books and other reliable sources about Lennon in the case. --Laser brain (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the information about the possible ("may have") unreliability of the source. However this source is used in the Quarrymen article : I changed "November 1956" into "1956" because I didn't find "November" in that source. --Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello and please read the main wiki article on Lennon`s Imagine song. Is there any need in further explanations? Let me know. Ono is not a co-writer of Imagine. Lennon, in fact, is not an `english`, but british (irish) musician. Greenhornfromwildwest

@Greenhornfromwildwest: Yes, you should explain your edits in an edit summary, and definitely not mark them as "minor" when you're making substantive content changes. You are also editing with what appears to be your personal opinion and against what the cited sources say. One has co-writer credit on "Imagine" and that was the subject of lots of press. Lennon was born in England and came from Liverpool so I don't know what you're talking about. I'm of Irish heritage but I was born in America so I call myself an American, not an Irishman. Please don't continue to edit war on those articles. --Laser brain (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

First, Lennon was an Irishman by birth and always talked about this in an interview. It was important to him and was reflected in his songs. Liverpool is a half Irish city in terms of population. If an Irishman is Irish since his father and mother are also Irish, and he was born in England, he does not become an Englishman from this, but he can be considered British (since part of Ireland is an integral part of Great Britain). Thus, Lennon is Irish or British of Irish descent (as, incidentally, the other two Beatles), but not English at all. Secondly, the song `Imagine` since its publication in 1971 has always been signed only by the name of Lennon, and Yoko Ono did not dispute authorship. Her current desire to rewrite history without even informing relatives, such as Julian, is not legitimate and is also not a basis for falsifying Wikipedia. Greenhornfromwildwest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenhornfromwildwest (talk • contribs) 15:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I see where you have run into Isaacsorry in the past. I do not know about reporting people but this guy disrupt edits everywhere. People complain on his talk page and he doesn't archive but he blanks all the negative input. He has listed articles he has edited but if you look at them each article has an edit battle. Also mysteriously other user names have the same complaints. I do not know about an administrators power to look behind edits but this guy needs looked into but I cannot help, Eschoryii (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

See Reporting Isaacsorry above.Eschoryii (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

... and today. birthday of Elke Heidenreich who wrote with her husband Alte Liebe after they separated, - my little contrib to what should be a good idea not only on Valentine's Day --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have seen your name on the list of volunteers on peer review. Can you please check Let's Fall in Love for the Night because I have nominated for GA and want to see if anything needs to be fixed.

Thank you so much, DarklyShadows (talk)

Hi Andy, I see you haven’t been round for a while; I hope all is OK with you and yours in these troubled times. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Hey! Life's been a bit of a mess due to some ways the health crisis has impacted my extended family and my country's especially poor response. I hope to re-engage soon. Hope you are well! --Laser brain (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Good to hear you are OK, at least! Keep safe and look forward to seeing you around whenever things improve. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Puddleglum2.0, a writer for the Wikipedia newsletter The Signpost. I was planning on putting together an interview with coordinators and delegates involved in the Featured Content projects for the August edition, but before putting together the questions, I wanted to gauge coords interest to see if it will be worth doing. Thanks for your work and thoughts! Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 19:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

No kidding!!! Hope all is well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Me, thrice. Cassianto^Talk 17:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to add Dgraph to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_database but you keep reverting the change insisting on citing a source, which doesn't make much sense in the context of a grid of companies that are in the space. In that same graph the following entries have no citation AllegroGraph, ArangoDB, InfiniteGraph, MarkLogic, Oracle, OrientDB, Sparksee and TerminusDB. They appear on this comparative analysis https://www.g2.com/products/neo4j/competitors/alternatives They are founded by an ex-google employee in 2016 and have raised $14.5 million in funding https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/dgraph and we're featured in a tutorial on Hackernoon recently https://hackernoon.com/graph-databases-graphql-and-dgraph-tutorial-uz1i3u49 https://hackernoon.com/graph-databases-graphql-and-dgraph-tutorial-uz1i3u49 There is other news as well, but I don't see how that applies to the change I'm making. If all you want me to do is add some references to those aforementioned items, I can do that, but given that it wasn't required on those other 8 entries, I'm confused. I appreciate any clarification you can provide.

Smga3000 (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Should I try to get more reviews for Tropical Storm Vicente or is it okay? Noah^Talk 02:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely but generally when I'm considering promotion I'm looking for a good number of reviews where it's evident the article was carefully weighed against the FA criteria. If there are drive-by supports I'm less likely to take them into consideration. --Laser brain (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Laser brain. I am writing to you to seek clarification on why you reverted my edit to Template:Yes (band), where I removed a link to an article that does not exist. This is the first time I have been reverted over removing a link to an article that does not exist in such a template. Wikipedia:Navigation template states we should only link to existing articles, so I removed it, but you have said my reason was not a valid one. What do you mean? Thanks if you can clarify. 1.43.124.103 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read the relevant section of the guideline: "Red links and redirects should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first." In this case it's an album that should have an article, and the strategy should be to stub out the article before we could consider removing the red link (and thus presenting incomplete information). You are misinterpreting the guideline. --Laser brain (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I read that. I am not misinterpreting the guideline by any measure that I can see. It says right there we should avoid adding red links unless they're very likely to be turned into articles and even then, write the article first before adding it. Yes' discography shows the album is 20 years old, and it appears User:LowSelfEstidle only recently added the red link. I also could not find any charting data on it, so I am not sure it would be considered "notable" if it was created. Based on that, I determined it doesn't appear likely to be turned into article. I am also sure there are other Yes releases that have not been included there that are not presented there as red links, for example their numerous other singles that don't have articles, so as it stands it does not quality as a complete set of information. I just believe you disagree with me. I don't see there being a misinterpretation. 1.43.124.103 (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. If you really think it's not better off as a stub article and don't think anyone will want to create it, then it's best removed. --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Two years ago you participated in a FAC review of Biblical criticism that was not finished due to problems with the sources and because I left WP before I could straighten it all out. I have recently returned and have gone over the article again and checked every source, deleting multiple references where one would do, narrowing page numbers for easier access to content, and making sure every reference actually says what is claimed. I believe they are all correct now. Some references are not to google books, they are to Amazon where some are the paperback version, but they are findable without too much trouble. I had to uae the Resource center and My library to run down a couple of things but I'm sure you can access that to find them as well.

If you go look, you will see on the Talk page that there are three separate backwards copyright violations posted. They are all new online postings copied from 'my article' since the original FAC review in 2018. Please, please don't disqualify this article because of them. This article represents months of work and none of it is plagiarized. Pease let me know what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Welcome back! Yes I see the backward copyright violations, and that won't be an issue. For some reason I didn't see your ping on the article talk from last month, but I'm returning from a bit of a break in editing as well. I don't see any reason why you couldn't proceed with a nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Bless you! I was worried you might have been put off by the copy vios. A. Parrot said he would review the sources to see if I missed anything but he is unavailable until October. I've waited this long. I want everything to be as perfect as we can make it, so waiting a little longer on that to happen will be worth the effort. I will renominate when A. Parrot tells me my assessment agrees with his. Thank you again. This reassures me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It is now at FAC. Please come. I need a source review. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I'll be monitoring it as a coordinator but I typically don't do reviews these days as I'd need to recuse my coord duties and the other two are kinda swamped with other things this month. I'm watching! --Laser brain (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay! It was recommended that I attempt to get everyone who was involved with the first fac to come back and participate, but I totally get that things have moved on for you since then. Thank you for your oversight! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Laser brain, hope you are well. I saw your comment and closure of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Game of Thrones/archive3 due to minimal feedback. Would it be possible to exempt the FAC from the two-week waiting period? If not, it is not a problem, just wanted to see. Thank you! -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@LuK3: Sure, go ahead and renominate. If you're looking for ideas for getting more feedback, I'd encourage you to get involved in the reviewing process and get your name visible. Many times nominators who provide substantive reviews for other nominations find that encourages some mutual review activity. --Laser brain (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Im going to ask around and see if anyone else would be willing to leave comments for Hector. Mike Christie left a few comments the other day. Noah^Talk 17:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:Laser brain, I would like you to peer review the article, MCMXC a.D. for GA status. It is about an album by Enigma that was relatively famous in the early 1990s due to the success of "Sadeness (Part I)" and its unique (at the time) mixture of different genres and elements. Thanks. Lazman321 (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lazman321: Can you clarify whether you're looking for a peer review, or a review of a GA nomination? I haven't been engaged with the GA process in a long time and would have to spend some time familiarizing myself with the current criteria. --Laser brain (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer review. I am not nominating the article for GA status yet. I am just looking for improvements so it could be viable for a GA nomination. If you do start reviewing actual GA nominations, here are some links that could help: This is the GA criteria, this and this are recommendations on what to do during a GA review, and this is a GA reviewing cheatsheet developed by the Physics Wikiproject. The GA criteria is generally easier to meet than the FA criteria but is still a challenge to meet nonetheless. This is why I am listing the article for a peer review first. Lazman321 (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

OK cool. I will be able to look at it this weekend. --Laser brain (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Laser brain: The weekend has passed. Will you be able to do the peer review. Lazman321 (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay! I am partway through my review and will post notes within the next couple of days. Life happened. --Laser brain (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the close at WT:FAC, and for your excellent service over the years. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Dank! On to other things. --Laser brain (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey there, Laser brain! Since you've been reviewing articles, I thought I'd ask you if you have some time reviewing an article, which I'm considering for a second FAC nomination (on a film actress). I'm not sure you have time but the peer review process yielded no responses, I was hoping to find someone who would be willing to give it a look. I think it is quite ready now but I still want an independent review by an experienced editor just to make up my mind. Please let me know if you can make it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, which article? --Laser brain (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Dimple Kapadia, a veteran Indian actress who was recently seen in Nolan's Tenet. It was up for FAC, where it gained supports from all but one user who messed up the entire page (which started, believe it or not, from opposition to one word pertaining to her parents' religion), but it's okay, I think it gave me time to improve the article further. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shshshsh: Ah... I see the old FAC. What a mess. I will look over the article tomorrow and let you know what I think. I see lots of comments about the sources–are you confident that's been worked out? --Laser brain (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes of course. Blofeld/Encyclopædius gave a very meticulous source review, at the end of which he switched his initial oppose with a support. Still, when the whole thing was archived, I took the time to dig in the archives, including books and scholarly material, to provide the best sources available for each claim and make the sourcing solid as a rock. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shshshsh: I read through today. It is very good. I honestly can't find anything to complain about. I might make some prose tweaks but they are really just personal writing preference. Some other people whose judgement I trust supported your last nomination and that's a good sign. Would you let me know when you nominate it again? I will be happy to comment. --Laser brain (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Andy. I'll let you know, definitely. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for coming over to my talk, and clarifying. I am sorry that I confused the L'Ange history with a discussion for another opera (that I really forgot, and that may even be better ...) - Look today at BB music, a little annual crusade of mine, to have one of his works on DYK for his birthday on St Cecilia's day. BB for Benjamin Britten and this time also Bertolt Brecht. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" - Can you please resolve the Donizetti, - I don't want to touch it. Same for the Offenbach works, as I explained today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Andy, as a personal note, thank you for all the above and byond help, assistance and leading by example over the last god knows how many years. You are always a voice of reason, whoes opinion holds weight across the project. Sincearly, your contribution to FAC, has and continues to be a huge plus. Ceoil (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Thank you sincerely. I have always enjoyed working with you and reading the subjects where you have been involved. --Laser brain (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The birthday display! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to keep on your radar during these busy times. Happy holidays, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. - Jerome Kohl went live! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

... and was on the Main page today, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for having improved and supported Carmen, with Bizet's music "expressing the emotions and suffering of his characters" as Brian worded it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

today (IWD): MMMM with a reference to Carmen again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I was recently doing a review of all the page restrictions I've placed or taken ownership of over the years, and I noticed that a majority of the pages were no longer battlegrounds and didn't require restrictions anymore. I was looking backwards a couple of months on the article history and talk page looking for major diputes, and for the most part things were pretty quiet. I've removed the BRD restrictions from about 70% of the articles that I had put them on, and the 1RR restrictions from probably 90% of pages.

I figured while I was at it I might as well try to track down the other pages with active sanctions and see if the admins who placed them might also be interested in doing a similar review. The following list might not be complete, but it's the best I could come up with by tracking usages of the American Politics AE template. (Perhaps you can compare it to whatever system you have for tracking your active sanctions.)

• Template:Editnotices/Page/Political positions of Donald Trump - Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump

I'm hoping that removing some of these restrictions can help restore some sense of normalcy to the topic area. In any case I hope this list is helpful. ~Awilley (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Awilley, I don't think Laser brain is active anymore. He hasn't edited since last December. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)