Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

	The Original Barnstar
	Great stuff all around- particularly at AFD! Keep up the good work. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Ah, that's so kind of you! I really appreciate it :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the talk-page-stalk @AleatoryPonderings:. I echo this sentiment. You have been a pleasure to interact with in all my interactions with you, more specifically in many of the recent AfDs. Thanks AleatoryPonderings. Ktin (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks Ktin! It's been great to work with and "meet" you too :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Piling on—nice work! czar 19:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Czar, Sorry, didn't see this till now! Thanks so much—it means a lot. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hope all is well. I'm curious about your redirection of Urban Research Program. I actually considered that, but ended up deciding to PROD, given that the URP isn't mentioned at the target article at all, and doesn't seem to merit a mention. What was your thinking? Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Ah, that's completely fair—I really just saw that it was hosted at Western Sydney University and thought that, in the (unlikely) event that someone was searching for it, they'd have somewhere to go. Nothing much beyond that. Feel free to revert and take it to AfD/RfD if you think that makes sense! I just saw a vaguely plausible redirect target and decided to go for it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I guess I can understand that that. I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm not that familiar with RfD, so will probably rv and take it to AFD, because I really couldn't find sourcing to justify a mention there. I agree that almost always redirection is a good outcome. Again, I'm pretty impressed with your contributions -- you remind me a lot of myself actually (in a good sense, please don't take offense at the comparison!). Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, Makes perfect sense—go right ahead. And no, certainly no offense taken :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For sorting out the mess that had become of the Dairy in India DYK! – SD0001 (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: Aw, thanks! I'm not sure I entirely resolved it, but hopefully I untangled some of the many knots. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Photogenic (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thank you for your contributions at the AfD and on the article. I appreciate the hard work you put into this. You did convince me, this is notable. I would have commented as such at the AfD, but it was closed. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggie: Thanks for your note—I appreciate it! It took a bit of digging, but the secondary sources we needed finally emerged :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article David Graeber, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Black Kite! I only did a bit of cleanup; feel a bit sheepish getting official recognition :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the long delay answering and missing the discussion. A redirect to Illuminati is neither wholly wrong nor wholly right. I really don't understand where the proper venue would be to discuss this as the pages I found were marked closed, so please bear with me for writing to you instead. I'll gladly repost if I can find the proper place. :-) Illuminism is still today pretty much a nonword in English, it got a minimum of traction only because the word for enlightenment in some big Romance languages is illuminisme - illuminismo, making it a tempting false friend for nonnative writers, like "today I didn't become my mail' (bekommen = receive in German). It even had a WP entry, which was clearly a forgotten stub for enlightenment when a very thorough entry for it already existed. After long notice I deleted the stub and put in the redirect. I still find no usage referring to illuminati, either the conspiracy theory or the original, actual group of people. Wikitionary has an unimpeacheable entry that references the French and lists all the related terms. To align WP to Wikitionary I'd prefer the redirect to enlightenment, but illuminism is so marginal, and the WP Illuminati entry so thorough, that it might not really matter. Spamhog (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spamhog, Thanks for your detailed reply! Narky Blert (forgive the ping, Narky Blert, but I wanted to credit you) made a similar point at the RfD. It seems, all things considered, like the best result in this case would have been delete, given the vagaries and subtleties at play. Such are the perils of seeking consensus among non-experts, I suppose … AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping!

@Spamhog: False friends are a pain. I'll add German See/sea (where there's some overlap), Knecht/knight and Knabe/knave; and if your Italian shower is too hot, do not increase the flow of caldo. False friends in English can be even more deceptive, because unexpected: wikt:Table#Verb #4 and 5, watershed and Rubber (disambiguation)#Other uses.

I'm not any sort of expert on C18 thought, but had come across "illuminism" before somewhere. Concepts like the Enlightenment itself and freemasonry differ markedly either side of the Channel. All this is a long-winded way of saying that I've tagged Illuminism as {{R with possibilities}}, and added a soft link to German WP. Narky Blert (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AleatoryPonderings, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Thanks! I appreciate it :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how did you become so big so fast in wikipedia? how did you do all that? they have declined all my requests everywhere please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvin kipchumba kosgei (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has had most of edits reversed, has been warned on Talk, has had a draft declined several times but then main-spaced it anyway (since draftified and then Speedy deleted), pestered editors on their Talk pages to help with that same article, asked for Extended confirmed only days after registering as an editor, and most recently applied to be a Pending changes reviewer despite showing no experience to justify that. David notMD (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD, Thanks for the detailed explanation. @Alvin kipchumba kosgei: In response to your question, the best way to contribute on Wikipedia is to start slow, developing your own articles bit by bit, being sure to comply with our policies including WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. Asking for permissions before you have demonstrated a good track record of article development is not likely to be successful. You don't need advanced permissions to contribute to Wikipedia: all you need is a keyboard and some reliable sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wow that is a very detailed explanation of me. okay i will start slow and stop misusing wikipedia thank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvin kipchumba kosgei (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC) i love the art of never giving up could i ask you questions in the future about things that i do not know in wikipediaAlvin kipchumba kosgei (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin kipchumba, Yes, I'd be happy to answer questions. To get a faster response from a wider variety of editors, I'd suggest visiting The Teahouse, which is designed to help editors early in their Wikipedia careers. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support154.154.88.131 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i am mostly a wikipedian in swahili and i kind of saw that they did not have 'methali' in english proverbs could there be a way to open up a knew sister for wikipedia for showing language expressions not only for proverbs but also for various language expressions that will help a lot of people who are writing or reading essays, articles and even makes them understand it much more better.Alvin kipchumba (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvin kipchumba: I'm a little confused. Are you referring to sw:Methali? It looks like it's an equivalent of the English article proverb. If I'm mistaken, and methali is a specific Swahili proverb, you're free to create the article. A proverb would have to meet WP:GNG in order to remain on Wikipedia. In order to show that your article meets GNG, you'd need to include two or three reliable sources to support specific claims in the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ooh yeah! i`ve seen it in english but not in swahili, but dont you think that there should be a seperate side for language expressionsAlvin kipchumba (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin kipchumba, Still not sure what you mean. If you think there should be an article titled, for example, List of Swahili proverbs, you are free to create it, provided that you have reliable sources to support the claims made and provided that the list meets WP:LISTN. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

do you think the whole of wikipedia should be updatedAlvin kipchumba (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin kipchumba, Yes, that's the point of Wikipedia. If you have specific, constructive questions to ask, please ask me or the Teahouse. I am not interested in responding to general, speculative queries. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thanks a lot for your helpAlvin kipchumba (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin kipchumba, Hello, I am following up with the issue. We can discuss it on my talk page. Cheers Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 22:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hey, if you still remember about the swahili wiktionary i have a problem in it there is no special user access granted such as extended confirmed users , administrators or even burueacats so that means that there is no maintanance in it because you cannot delete articles that are not relevant to swahiliAlvin kipchumba (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the competitions in wikipedia are true? Alvin kipchumba (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Sierra Chart. I do not think that Sierra Chart fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because This is an article about a piece of software, not about a company. A7 does not apply.. If you wish, you may try using the simple proposed deletion (PROD) process, or the full articles for deletion (AfD) process, instead, if this was an article, or another process such as MfD or XfD as appropriate. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DESiegel. I just prodded it. I used {{Db-inc}} because it looked as if the software and the company making it were basically coextensive and functionally identical for notability purposes, but I agree the criterion was not a great fit. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I don't disagree mwith teh Prod. Please remember that the CSDs are construed narrowly and strictly, and if an article or page does not clearly fit a criterion, it should not be tagged with that criterion. There are good reasons why A7 does not apply to software or other creative works, such as books. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dairy in India, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that nearly half the milk produced in India, whose dairy industry is the largest in the world, comes from buffaloes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dairy in India. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dairy in India), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted—thanks for the clarification. Kyuko (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyuko: No problem! Also, just for future reference: you can prod with Twinkle, which automatically puts {{Old prod}} on the article's talk page. That way, editors in the future won't accidentally prod the article a second time; Twinkle will abort the prod procedure if it finds {{Old prod}} on a talk page. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on D. Narcisa de Villar. Always a pleasure to see such well sourced articles in the new pages queue. Have you considered applying for New Page Reviewer permissions? From what I've seen, your content creation and AfD work is excellent, and we could always use more active reviewers :) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Bolingbroke: Thanks—you're too kind! Re: NPP, I may apply at some point, but I just applied for and got autopatrolled rights so I was thinking I'd take a bit of a break from applying for things for now. Actually, I'm a little confused as to why my articles are still in the queue—I guess autopatrolling isn't retroactive? In any event, glad you enjoyed my little article :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the articles you created before you were autopatrolled will still show up in the queue. And no pressure regarding NPP—just something to consider if you're so inclined. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Bolingbroke, Just wanted to let you know that I've taken the plunge into NPP! Please let me know if you have any helpful hints about how to do the job well :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AleatoryPonderings,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 19:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per "WP:ITSINTERESTING", just saying, if you're interested ;) czar 19:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, Definitely interested :) Thanks for the note! Not an area in which I have extensive knowledge, but would love to learn more—giving a stub some love would be a great way to do that. Look forward to crossing paths with you again, at AfD or elsewhere. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

three if you post templates without help please notify the pages creator or help by adding text and information thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginrei (talk • contribs)

@Ginrei: I did notify you that I had nominated Eiga (website) for speedy deletion. Please see this diff. As for adding text or information, my view is that the page qualifies for WP:A7, which means that it does not establish a credible claim of significance based on the information provided in the article. My view remains that it does not establish such a claim. You are welcome to contest my claim on the talk page of the article if you disagree. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rosie Carpe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Nouvelle République.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Turner, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope all is well. I saw you prodded an article created by Charles Rapeneau looking at that users page creations, many seems suspect. I PRODDED one, thought you might be interested in taking a look at some, of the others if time allows. Of course, please don't feel obligated. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, Ah, didn't realize we were dealing with a serial creation issue. Yeah, I'll take a look in the next while. No chance of WP:G5ing any of these, I suppose? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem CR actually violated their block in creating the articles, more that they were blocked after creating the articles? However, I think they should be uncontroversial deletions all the same. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made an error in your edit in respect to Atherton's award of the post nominal FRSA. This relates to being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and has nothing whatsoever do to with the Royal Society which you used as evidence for your edit.83.216.75.225 (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on drinking in Philadelphia. 1) I don't think Atlas Obscura is a reliable source, their FAQ states Anyone, anywhere in the world can add to Atlas Obscura. However, they do state all contributions to Atlas Obscura are reviewed by our editorial team.. Still, not the best source, imo. 2) Might be a good idea for us to start using {{in use}} to avoid edit conflicting. 3) How do you feel about converting the 'list of notable fountains' to table form? Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891:

1. Agreed, but the statement it's sourcing seems readily source-able with something more reliable so it's just a question of finding that.
2. Agree. I'm leaving it be for the moment due to impending off-wiki obligations, so feel free to put it {{In use}}} now.
3. Unsure. What would the table entries be, besides name and date?

AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re to #3: probably 'name', 'date', 'image', 'description', and 'Ref(s). Mostly a way to 1) provide a merge target, if that's how the AFD turns out, and 2) ease of incorporating images, because it seems like we will have more images than can fit into the likely amount of prose. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, Ah, got it. Now agree, especially re: images (seems like there are a lot of nice PD images we can use). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly lots of good images! Do we consider this a RS? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Draft talk:Philadelphia public drinking fountains

 – Seems better there? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for helping make edits to Mohamed Gad-el-Hak. It's a weird case, he is definitely a professor with a long list of achievements, but still not super well known outside of his field. Also, the blatant COI and self-promo, while not unusual, seemed to be incorporated into his resume. It's like he was using his own self-written Wikipedia page as an accolade. Very odd! But thank you so much for helping clean it up. I'm going to take another crack at it this weekend if I have time. MrAureliusRTalk! 20:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, MrAureliusR! You're too kind—I hardly did that much … To be honest, I still don't understand what his research is actually about? But always willing to lend a hand with copy-editing. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites "Austin 1889" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Or is it a typo and should be "Scott 1899"? Also, suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renata3, I fixed the problem. It was indeed "Scott 1899". Thanks for pointing that out. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, Thanks for the message. I've always wondered: why is there a cutoff at 1932? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings: We were trying to find a line between what is politics and what is history. My original proposal was 1980, but that was seen as a too recent cutoff so we went with FDR's election. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, Ah, gotcha. Seems as reasonable a date as any. Thanks :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Better Than Working, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a gadget "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" which is handy to avoid accidental links to disambig pages. – SD0001 (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SD0001, Aha, thanks! These bot messages have been getting a bit annoying … Congrats again on your great work on dairy in India.

Fwiw, my 2c re: FA worthiness is: some of the sections (mainly the ones about history and culture) read a bit like collections of information without a clear narrative. I'm thinking, for instance, about Dairy_in_India#Early_period and Dairy_in_India#Religion. It would be good if we could find a way to make these read more smoothly/coherently. I guess that would require finding some general background sources about ancient history and religion, respectively, although maybe we could borrow sources/content from related articles.

Tldr: I don't think this should go to FAC immediately. Might help to get some other eyes on it, if there's anyone at WP:INDIA who'd be interested in helping out. I have a number of substantial offwiki obligations coming up soon so, unfortunately, I doubt I'll be able to help too much in the next couple months. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had the same thoughts. #Early period definitely needs sprucing up (heck, the distinction of what is early vs what is modern itself could be questioned at an FAC!). Some content in #Religion could probably be just dropped given that there is enormous coverage of the matter in Cattle slaughter in India. #Trade, #Processing and the lede are the other places with at least some level of prose issues, that come to mind. – SD0001 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SD0001, Hmm, yes, I hadn't even thought about the possible WP:OR-ish-ness of the distinction between early and modern. It doesn't seem graceful to change it to like == Ancient history == and == 20th century == , even though that's basically what it is atm, because then the question would be: and what happened to the intervening millennia, pray tell? We might be able to get away with just putting {{Main}} to History of India or one of its many subpages at the top, but it would be cool/look less odd to have at least something between the Vedic period and the 1900s …… AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hola! Wanted to wave-by and say hello! Hope all is well! Ktin (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ktin, Thanks! Hope you and yours are well too :) Happy autumn. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, All is well here too :) It seems like summer just started and fall is already here. Time sure does fly. Ktin (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AleatoryPonderings. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, Thanks so much! I appreciate it :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for reviewing a number of my articles! Juan de Bolas Talk 19:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Juan de Bolas: Aw, thanks :) I appreciate it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]