User talk:Thine Antique Pen/Archive 6

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hôtel d'Alluye you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello: I'm working on a copy edit of your article MV Britannic (1929) and have left a note on it's Talk Page about a sentence that I feel needs clarification. Regards. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello:

I have pretty much completed the copy edit of your article. I do have a few questions/comments which follow, for your consideration.

• White Star Line chose a diesel method of propulsion for the Britannic, despite previously preferring multiple expansion steam engines. I have added that this was because diesel engines were cheaper to operate because they used less fuel. In the "Early Years" segment I removed mention of fuel in favour of "lower operating costs". Puts information in a better order, I think.
  
• I have added a minor, but necessary, detail for RMS Celtic which will need to be cited. I assume one of your reference books can be used for this.
  
• In "Early Years" you write: "In 1933, the Britannic was travelling at a speed of 19.5 knots, above its previously-intended speed, and was able to carry 1,103 passengers, the highest number of passengers on board a ship that year." You don’t explain why the ship was traveling at this speed but the implication is this was why it as able to carry 1,103 passengers which I do not understand. If the speed resulted in more voyages surely the number of passengers carried would be much higher. Am I missing something?
  
• In the "Cunard White Star" section I have assumed engine damage was the issue and said so. I assume there were other reasons for "poor performance" – also assume her performance was measured against Champlain but you don’t indicate how many passengers she carried. Perhaps need to expand and clarify.
  
• In the WWII section you wrote: "In April and May 1945 the Britannic was responsible for transporting British Canadian women soldiers and their children." Please check how I have re-written this, trying to capture what I think was the case, to make sure I’m correct. I hope the way I phrased it is clearer.
  
• "Post War" – perhaps explain how the crankshaft was severely damaged?
  
• "Technical elements" – need to explain why the engine was difficult to run, I think also why was it "received positively"? (I love the idea Britannic had 2 backup canoes!!))
  
• Interior – were third class passengers designated by a descriptor? Seems likely they were?
  

I hope this is helpful. Please let me know when you have made the changes you agree are necessary, I will do a final check, and report to the GOCE the edit is complete.
Regards Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Twofingered Typist:. Thanks for your incredibly helpful and in-depth copyedit.

• I've cited the information on RMS Celtic and hope that I've clarified the information on its speed and passengers (with its fittings at that time, it was able to carry 1,103 passengers per journey). I see the poor performance to be only due to damaged engines.
• I'm unsure how many passengers Champlain carried, other than it being above both Georgic and Britannic; I may try looking into ISBN 9780750956598 but it may take some time. I spotted the Champlain travelling faster than the Britannic as a possible reason for higher passenger figures (around 20 knots, although this source reports the Britannic at 16.5 knots).
• I agree with your changes to the WWII section and I am unsure about how the crankshaft got damaged, but the source mentions the crew hearing "suspicious noises" from the engine room. I've added material explaining why passengers received the diesel engine positively and I think that the third class passengers were simply identified by the accommodation booked in the Britannic.

I must thank you again for your efforts! Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I will advise the GOCE is completed. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The article Hôtel d'Alluye you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hôtel d'Alluye for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at the article Perijá tapaculo as you requested. I see that it has just become a GA, were you thinking of taking it further, to FA for example? So what did I think about it? Well, I think it is in need of some copyediting. There are places where it needs attention to the pronouns, and others where the phraseology is a bit odd, but in general it seems to adequately cover the topic. An article like this is rather more difficult to write than a straightforward bird article where everything is known about the bird. And the bird straddling the border and living at various altitudes is a bit muddling. You should also pay attention to your conversions, like this one "1,600 and 3,225 m (5,249 and 10,581 ft)" which is a bit over precise. Hope that helps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Hi Cwmhiraeth, thanks for responding. I was thinking of attempting to take it further, hopefully one day to FA status, despite the distinct lack of information on the bird. I've requested a copyedit on the article at the GOCE requests page and appreciate the points you've made; I hope to act upon them soon. To further improve the article I also started a peer review yesterday. Thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Thine Antique Pen: I am currently working on your request. Would you take issue with me Americanizing the spelling? I know that Wikipedia doesn't mind as long as it is keep consistent, but since you seem to be the major contributor to the page, I thought it best to ask you. I will retain the spelling in the meantime, but as I am not fluent in British spelling, I may err. Hampton11235 (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hampton11235: I think it would be best to keep British spelling. I can fix any inconsistencies that may occur. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Thine Antique Pen: I will keep it then. I should be done with the c/e later today. Hampton11235 (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The article Hôtel d'Alluye you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hôtel d'Alluye for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed you added a bunch of info to some pages I had created. Question for ya... It looks like it is just the same information on each page. Wouldn't it be better to have an actual Iris-class buoy tender page (that is just a redirect at the moment) that has this information instead of duplicating the same info? I'm curious what your thoughts are. Hoping you are well. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me} /_{What I been doing} ) 20:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you are well too. I agree that it would be a good idea to have a larger article describing all the relevant details of the class as a whole, along with its development and strategic significance. I'll look into this at a later date, but also believe in having basic information in the article of each ship. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Allen3 ^talk 11:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I gather that you didn't realize that Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines forbids bullets in infoboxes. FYI.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll go over my expansions later today. Thanks for that. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Be advised that there's no such thing as "beam length" or "draught length" as used in your UCII-class articles, only beam and draught (which it would be nice if you linked). Be sure to see if you used that same formulation in your other uboat articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll perform some replacements soon. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. I've got some infobox-related edits to make to the articles in the future. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I've got a few fixes to do myself. Amazing how an undetected error in one bit can spread like wildfire once you go crazy with copy-paste.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I figured that you hadn't given up quite so early, but at least you didn't drop them on us at the last minute. And I'm practically out of ships while I expect that there are even more species of fungi that you could expand. Well played, sir.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I had nearly given up, until I spotted these and found them as good candidates for expansion. Thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am thinking of further expanding a few of your Italian province stub expansions. I do not intend to claim anything for my work on them in the Stub Contest, but propose to put them forward as joint DYKs if you are happy with that arrangement. I have made a start with Province of Sondrio. The reason I am suggesting this is that they are very good scorers in the WikiCup, which is about to enter its final round.They have both language and age bonuses and should score about 25 points each as opposed to a new article's score of 5. Do you object to having a few extra (joint) DYKs? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Cwmhiraeth:. I would be absolutely fine with that arrangement. Good luck at the WikiCup! Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for nominating those. Could you take another look at Perijá tapaculo? I had dropped you an email but figured you prefer talk pages. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look. I was having so much junk mail that I was put off from looking in my inbox and have now changed my email address. You seem to have been working hard at expanding stubs! :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay - I think I sent it to your old email address. I decided to expand some of my own stubs, which opened up a large number of potential expansions. I'm unsure about the image placement in Perijá tapaculo; I've had to place {{clear }} in the description section to make sure that the image on the left does not interfere with the ecology/behaviour section. It was suggested that the image of the juvenile bird be placed in the taxobox, although I'm unsure of this. Thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Scotland Casliber (submissions ) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Philadelphia Coemgenus (submissions ) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions ), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
2. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions ) (FP bonus points ), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions ), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
4. Somerset Harrias (submissions ), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
5. Washington, D.C. West Virginian (submissions ), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
6. Somerset Rodw (submissions ), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
7. United States Rationalobserver (submissions ), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
8. England Calvin999 (submissions ), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk ·contribs ), Miyagawa (talk ·contribs ) and Sturmvogel66 (talk ·contribs ) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) delivered on behalf of Imzadi1979 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Battle of the Lacus Curtius 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! Alex2006 (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Alex2006 (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice save . Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Maybe it was something to do with Rucka Rucka Ali. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Harrias ^talk 15:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, since I can find them in Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists anyway, but a lot of these articles that you are fixing are not in fact disambiguation pages. The tag was erroneous from the start. I could have shoved all ~6000 of them in that category years ago, but they require more careful sifting through to determine which are valid dab pages and which aren't. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess that I was somewhat confused about that, sorry. I'll try trawling through my edits sometime. Thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've expressed concern at the FAC about the sourcing, but I'd like to help if I can. I have access to the on-line version of HBW, and I can send you the text of the taxonomy sections of the family article and whichever species' accounts you think are relevant. I don't know if any other sections would be of use. I have Birds of Venzuela, but that's primarily a field guide and a bit dated, even if it covers the range.

Email me if you would like any of the above. I've a very busy weekend coming up, so I may not reply immediately Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I can also reference an etymology for the genus name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: That would be fantastic, thank you very much — I have sent you an email. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: I have dropped you another email to request extra clarification. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Kat is looking at your RFA, and asking, should I get ready for the katchat?

Supdiop (T🔹C) 00:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

To see the RFA isnt going well. Getting adminship with less than six years of editing experience is a pretty tall order, I suppose we all shouldve seen from the beginning that it wasnt going to happen. I hope youre not too upset. — Soap — 00:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not that tall. I came close and I'm nowhere near 6 years nor am I content creator. However I fear it will be another 3 years based on the opposes. Now that everyone knows your age, it's unavoidable. Some of the opposers due have a point, that subjecting someone of your age to that kind of abuse would make me feel bad. I'm neutral on this like I am on most RfAs, so I usually just sit and watch.—^cyberpower _Chat:Online 00:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's any comfort, I feel terrible about my vote. I just think you got some bad advice somewhere along the line about something that happens a lot on Wikipedia that really gets under RFA voters' skins. - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Regardless of the outcome of your pending RfA, I would suggest that you add appropriately completed versions of Template:Copied and/or Template:Translated page where you have copied portions of articles or translated articles from other Wikipedias. Including these templates on article talk pages removes any doubt that you are giving appropriate credit to the editors of the original articles, and creates a linked attribution for their contributions to yours. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your age does not bother me in the slightest, and I strongly feel that it will not be a factor in determining your RfA. Others younger than you in fact have passed, making the argument a discredited one. What crats look for as I am sure you know are the strengths in the arguments made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I wish I believed that. With the "count" in the range where it now is, I suspect the 'crats will not consider it to be discretionary - even though I agree with you that the "oppose" arguments are weak. Nearly a third of the "oppose" !votes are based on the candidate's age, which has no basis in policy and (in my limited experience) has never before been invoked before in an RfA - mainly because we don't know how old candidates are. --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The count is just a count though. I echo another editor in saying "shows they have what it takes" that matters most. If the age was taken into consideration, it would open up a huge debate on Wikipedia when it comes to under-aged admin who want the position. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to add: Thine Antique Pen, you have handled this incredibly stressful process with a calmness and restraint and, yes, maturity that would do credit to anyone - of any age. You have shown admirable character and I salute you. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

+1 Yash! 09:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. I am taking a few days off, and I might have more to say after that. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I regret to inform you that your RfA was closed as unsuccessful. I encourage you to review all the comments made during the RfA to see if there are any places where improvement can be made. Doing this will increase the likelihood of a successful RfA in the future. You are welcome to ask questions of myself or any other 'crat; we are always willing to help out where we can.

We appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, and look forward to seeing another RfA at some point in the future. ···日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

TAP, it may be too soon for this, but people will fuss if I don't notify you, and there's a chance this will make you smile on a sad day: your thoughts are welcome at WT:RFA#Two proposed RfCs on the viewdeleted userright. (P.S. This isn't canvassing, since you're one of the people in the target demographic ... you'll see what I mean.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi TAP, sorry to see that your RfA didn't make it through. Not to worry. You have plenty of time to get in later. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry mate. I doubt if Christ could pass RfA these days. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

He'd be rejected as too old! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

haha Supdiop (T🔹C) 23:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Its ok TAP, well played, 118 support votes is very positive thing. It is obvious that you will succeed in future once you "grow up". Best luck. --Human3015 ^TALK 22:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey TAP. I'm sorry to hear about the unfavorable outcome of your RFA. You'll always get it next time. ;) In the meantime, keep up your excellent work in articles, CCIs, and other sectors of Wikipedia. Epic Genius (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just wanted to chime in here, seeing as your RfA didn't go as many of us had hoped — don't let the end result dissuade you in any way from continuing on as you have been. Notice that the overwhelming majority of opposers, even the ones whose biggest issue was with your age, did not say "never". For most people, it boiled down to instances where paying close attention to detail was important, such as at DYK. Fram's oppose is the one that I think could give the greatest insights into where you could improve for next time. Try writing or expanding some more articles and bringing them to DYK, and make sure to read them over carefully when writing a hook so that you don't misrepresent anything by mistake. There is also no shame in asking for a second opinion if you feel like you need one. Maybe give it a year before submitting another request for adminship. You'll get there soon enough. For now, I can only second what Human3015 said above: you had 118 different people expressing confidence that you can be trusted with that kind of responsibility, and 57 others (or 68, depending on how you count the neutrals) who mostly just think you should give it a bit more time. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hard lines - do try again in a little while. Deb (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Honestly, I thought you'd become an admin at first. I'll tell you a story. Once upon a time, a ship started to sail in the sea and went 12 miles offshore. Unfortunately, water was coming into the ship because there was hole. Ship tried to come back to the shore but sank just half a mile away from the shore, how sad, but thankfully, nobody was killed, all were rescued. They built a new ship after some years and this time they made sure that there were no holes and started sailing again and this time it reached it's destination successfully. Supdiop (T🔹C) 09:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • There are holes in the boat? Did it run aground of a rock? And how is a sinking RFA comparable to—oh, I see now. Point is, you'll do better next time, TAP. Epic Genius (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute. We just told him he is too young to be an admin - and now you offer him a beer? Talk about mixed signals... 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Underage drinking? :P Epic Genius (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that a virtual beer is non-alcoholic --rogerd (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it might be interesting for you to examine Rainey Bennett. Paul Theodore Arlt and Richard Haines and tell me if you feel I am too picky about using sources exactly, or not citing a source so used. Thanks - and commiserations on the age bit. Collect (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Collect. I do not think you are being picky, and would consider these to be copyright violations. Rainey Bennett contains material from , , and , with the article history containing further violations. Paul Theodore Arlt contains material from and , also with further violations in the history. Richard Haines, although containing less infringements, uses material from and . I believe that the material should be appropriately paraphrased or removed completely, with all prior revisions removed from the article history. Whilst indeed violations, the edits appear to have been made in a good-faith spree of content creation, with the extent of copyright problems limited to under ten articles. Thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jakob. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

...on the promotion; thoroughly deserved. I'm sorry I couldn't play a more active part in the FAC, but it looks like you could manage fine without me! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Josh. Your help was much appreciated. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! It seems I shall be buying lots of books! Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Happy (belated) Halloween! North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Northamerica1000, happy Halloween to you too! Thine Antique Pen (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think only about 0.2% of those articles were started by me. :) Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thine Antique Pen congratulations on winning the stub contest. Could you please email me at karla.marte@wikimedia.org.uk to send the prize your way. Thank you. Karla Marte(WMUK) —Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)