epicgenius ( talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Nice piece in the Times yesterday! Those guys certainly deserve some recognition for their dedication, and I'm glad to see one of our humble WikiProjects get some press, too. :)
There is a Wikimedia chapter in New York City, and I'd like to invite you to come to a meeting/event if you're in the area and so inclined. We have regular events like edit-a-thons, partner with a variety of educational/cultural institutions, and have monthly "WikiWednesday" meetings in Manhattan. The next one is 4/25 ( information about it here). They're open to everyone and are attended by experienced Wikipedians, brand new users, open culture enthusiasts, librarians, educators, journalists, and all sorts of other people interested to learn more or get more involved with Wikimedia projects. There will be pizza and it takes place in an experimental video game nonprofit/gallery. If you can't make that one, you can always check back at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC for upcoming events.
Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I would be VERY interested in this, but I'm actually based in Dallas and just flew up to investigate for the one subway article. Maybe I can schedule another research trip up for another article, though? I find these communities fascinating, and think they make very positive stories, too. Best, Stephenbharrison ( talk) 03:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I first started looking behind the scenes of Wikipedia because I was working on a column for the Outline called "Wackipedia." The idea was to review Wiki articles for accuracy, completeness, and inanity. Although the quality varies widely, I realized fairly quickly that the more interesting story was the behind the scenes discussions and personalities. I'm interested in doing more feature pieces about the people behind Wikipedia, and would love more ideas about where to look if you have them. I'd also like to write about more female Wikipedia editors, and the interesting work they are doing. And of course, the contenious battles for certain subjects are fun to cover as well. Stephenbharrison ( talk) 14:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Stoneleigh P is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stoneleigh P until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not quite sure what's going in here, but I've just removed two of your recent edits for the same formatting issues. Please see Arconic and Stanley Black & Decker. In both cases, two separate employee numbers were mentioned, the citation had broken formatting, and the url had nothing to do with the topic. I don't know if this is the result of an automated process of some sort, or a copy and paste error, but I thought I should let you know. Thanks, Jessicapierce ( talk) 03:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hanesbrands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zorba ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Stephen. I'm genuinely sorry, as Wikipedia's more divisive pages can be a fascinating subject to talk about, but I would prefer not to be part of an article on one. The internet can be a rather unpredictable place and you just never know whose unwanted attention you'll get if you're featured in a well-read publication. I have enough problems already. ;) But good luck, I suspect it's a subject your editor and readers will be interested in! Felice Enellen ( talk) 03:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
No problem, I completely understand. I just wanted to ensure that I was reporting on diverse perspectives on the article. Thanks again. Stephenbharrison ( talk) 15:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'd be more than happy to cooperate with you on your said article. Be sure to contact me at my e-mail address: michael__frank@outlook.com Looking forward to hearing from you! Linguaddict ( talk) 14:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, sent you an email. Thanks much. Stephenbharrison ( talk) 15:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi there! I saw some of your good work on the article for The Chordials, so I thought I'd reach out! I've proposed a WikiProject dedicated to a cappella. This would be a group of editors interested in improving the quality of articles related to a cappella. If you're passionate about a cappella (ranging from the Pentatonix to collegiate a cappella groups like The Chordials, or perhaps pop culture representations like Pitch Perfect and The Sing-Off) please check out the proposal and share your feedback!
Here's a link to the proposal for WikiProject A Cappella.
If you could see yourself contributing to an article related to a cappella (like that one), please consider joining! If it was also just a passing thing, no worries—completely understood!
Stephen, I received your emails. I wish you luck on your article, but I'd rather stay away from any RL media activity. For me, editing Wikipedia is a hobby to keep my mind busy and I'd like to keep it that way. Felice Enellen said it pretty well above.
FWIW, that article/topic that you're interested in could be approaching those mentioned in WP:NOTNAS-ETHNIC. Respectfully, Toddst1 ( talk) 13:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks very much for letting me know. And if you'd like to be on the email distribution, I have a sign up on my personal site: stephenharrison.com Stephenbharrison ( talk) 22:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, my name is Rebestalic
I've seen that something you sent me, thank you for your interest! I think you're fully accurate with your paragraphs, although I personally would take the sprawling Indian population into account. People seem to like it when people die. Well, let's say that differently 😂 Death seems to attract viewership, but... why? Hey, perhaps you could team up with a psychologist and do some investigative thing on it! Oh dear, actually not, I'm letting myself get ahead of reality
psst also, it's Ginsburg with the S, not Ginburg
I reckon 'a report compiled weekly by Wikipedia volunteers' is an accurate enough description of what the Top 25 is, although I would personally make mention that the subject matter only covers activities on English Wikipedia, just to make things clear to idiots like me
I hope that helped, and I wish you luck with your assignment! Is it an assignment hmm Rebestalic [leave a message....] 08:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for signing up for today's online US housing edit-a-thon! Looking forward to your contributions. Please drop me a line if you have any questions. Cheers, -- M2545 ( talk) 17:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Got your email. I am right in the middle of something so I might not be able to respond before tomorrow morning. I am reading the material you linked to in your email. Unless I find something dodgy there my answer will almost certainly be "yes". -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Jasenovac_concentration_camp#This article has been mentioned by a media organization: template Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Stephenbharrison. I read
the article you published today, and I have to object to how you've framed Crimo's attempts to write an article about himself, especially the final paragraph. My read of that paragraph is that you think (or want your readers to think) that those efforts are a symptom of major narcissism, or perhaps some kind of personality disorder. To be blunt, that is a swing and a complete miss. I can't count the number of times I've deleted some "up-and-coming young artist," "social media influencer," or "entrepreneur"'s blatantly self-promotional page (and 2dgirl's deleted page is no different from any of those). Some folks take the hint the first time their creation is deleted, some keep at it and get blocked, a few keep on even after getting blocked. Few of these people are doing it because they do[n’t] recognize "objective" rules. They do not feel bound by mere policies like neutrality, avoiding self-promotion, or citing sources other than themselves
. They are doing it because they don't know those rules and have heard that getting a Wikipedia page is a big deal and it will get them noticed, misunderstanding the relationship between "fame" and "having a Wikipedia article". It's social media taken up a notch. It's a little narcissistic, sure, but I would say it probably stems from people growing up and living in a world dominated by social media. Suggesting there is any sort of correlation between "wrote a promotional Wikipedia autobiography" and "mass murderer" is, at best, a wild exaggeration.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 23:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
that this person's online history with Wikipedia and Fandom is part of the story in the same way that other sources are covering this person's history with YouTube, Discord, Spotify, Instagram, and other sites.But not the last paragraph. That is armchair something that fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia to advance a point. This point driven writing is something which I can't remember you having done before or at least to the extent that you've done it, you've marshaled actual evidence to support it. It really feels, once you learned of this account, that you started with the idea of the last paragraph in mind and decided to end there regardless of what the actual evidence showed. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
recognize “objective” rules. They do not feel bound by mere policies like neutrality, avoiding self-promotion, or citing sources other than themselves. A person who thinks rules don’t matter because nothing, in fact, matters.? I am going to say emphatically not. Those aren't even all the people who create autobiographies those are just the people who an edit filter catches - 2dgirl is not in that list. Either you didn't understand how common it is to create a Wikipedia autobiography, even when you don't qualify, or you did and decided it didn't matter. Either way it led you to a conclusion that feels off and unfair to dozens of people each day to have them labeled in the same way you're labeling a mass murderer. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Re: "Consciously or not, Wikipedia’s volunteer editors seem to have adopted a policy akin to some news publications that encourage focusing on the victims of mass shootings rather than “rewarding” the shooter with direct publicity", we do have a policy on that: WP:PERPETRATOR. "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." We also have WP:BLP1E, "We generally should avoid having an article on a person [...] if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" and WP:PSEUDO; "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context." Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 03:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
but this is still narcissistic, no?above, I would just go "no, it's not". Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
recognize “objective” rules. They do not feel bound by mere policies like neutrality, avoiding self-promotion, or citing sources other than themselves. A person who thinks rules don’t matter because nothing, in fact, matters.and you used your platform to suggest to the average Slate reader (who is already a bit different from the average person on the street) that they should think that too. And that is what has caused 4 very experienced Wikipedians to come to your user talk and pushback which is unusual in and of itself. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
After several years of distancing, I wan to invite you tomorrow (Jan 17th at 6pm) to the Boston-gathering at MIT.
Details can be found at Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/Wikipedia_22th_Anniversary_Celebration
Hope I can see you tomorrow — Johannes Kalliauer - contrib. 20:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, Stephen!
The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
epicgenius ( talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Nice piece in the Times yesterday! Those guys certainly deserve some recognition for their dedication, and I'm glad to see one of our humble WikiProjects get some press, too. :)
There is a Wikimedia chapter in New York City, and I'd like to invite you to come to a meeting/event if you're in the area and so inclined. We have regular events like edit-a-thons, partner with a variety of educational/cultural institutions, and have monthly "WikiWednesday" meetings in Manhattan. The next one is 4/25 ( information about it here). They're open to everyone and are attended by experienced Wikipedians, brand new users, open culture enthusiasts, librarians, educators, journalists, and all sorts of other people interested to learn more or get more involved with Wikimedia projects. There will be pizza and it takes place in an experimental video game nonprofit/gallery. If you can't make that one, you can always check back at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC for upcoming events.
Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I would be VERY interested in this, but I'm actually based in Dallas and just flew up to investigate for the one subway article. Maybe I can schedule another research trip up for another article, though? I find these communities fascinating, and think they make very positive stories, too. Best, Stephenbharrison ( talk) 03:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I first started looking behind the scenes of Wikipedia because I was working on a column for the Outline called "Wackipedia." The idea was to review Wiki articles for accuracy, completeness, and inanity. Although the quality varies widely, I realized fairly quickly that the more interesting story was the behind the scenes discussions and personalities. I'm interested in doing more feature pieces about the people behind Wikipedia, and would love more ideas about where to look if you have them. I'd also like to write about more female Wikipedia editors, and the interesting work they are doing. And of course, the contenious battles for certain subjects are fun to cover as well. Stephenbharrison ( talk) 14:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Stoneleigh P is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stoneleigh P until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not quite sure what's going in here, but I've just removed two of your recent edits for the same formatting issues. Please see Arconic and Stanley Black & Decker. In both cases, two separate employee numbers were mentioned, the citation had broken formatting, and the url had nothing to do with the topic. I don't know if this is the result of an automated process of some sort, or a copy and paste error, but I thought I should let you know. Thanks, Jessicapierce ( talk) 03:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hanesbrands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zorba ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Stephen. I'm genuinely sorry, as Wikipedia's more divisive pages can be a fascinating subject to talk about, but I would prefer not to be part of an article on one. The internet can be a rather unpredictable place and you just never know whose unwanted attention you'll get if you're featured in a well-read publication. I have enough problems already. ;) But good luck, I suspect it's a subject your editor and readers will be interested in! Felice Enellen ( talk) 03:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
No problem, I completely understand. I just wanted to ensure that I was reporting on diverse perspectives on the article. Thanks again. Stephenbharrison ( talk) 15:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'd be more than happy to cooperate with you on your said article. Be sure to contact me at my e-mail address: michael__frank@outlook.com Looking forward to hearing from you! Linguaddict ( talk) 14:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, sent you an email. Thanks much. Stephenbharrison ( talk) 15:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi there! I saw some of your good work on the article for The Chordials, so I thought I'd reach out! I've proposed a WikiProject dedicated to a cappella. This would be a group of editors interested in improving the quality of articles related to a cappella. If you're passionate about a cappella (ranging from the Pentatonix to collegiate a cappella groups like The Chordials, or perhaps pop culture representations like Pitch Perfect and The Sing-Off) please check out the proposal and share your feedback!
Here's a link to the proposal for WikiProject A Cappella.
If you could see yourself contributing to an article related to a cappella (like that one), please consider joining! If it was also just a passing thing, no worries—completely understood!
Stephen, I received your emails. I wish you luck on your article, but I'd rather stay away from any RL media activity. For me, editing Wikipedia is a hobby to keep my mind busy and I'd like to keep it that way. Felice Enellen said it pretty well above.
FWIW, that article/topic that you're interested in could be approaching those mentioned in WP:NOTNAS-ETHNIC. Respectfully, Toddst1 ( talk) 13:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks very much for letting me know. And if you'd like to be on the email distribution, I have a sign up on my personal site: stephenharrison.com Stephenbharrison ( talk) 22:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, my name is Rebestalic
I've seen that something you sent me, thank you for your interest! I think you're fully accurate with your paragraphs, although I personally would take the sprawling Indian population into account. People seem to like it when people die. Well, let's say that differently 😂 Death seems to attract viewership, but... why? Hey, perhaps you could team up with a psychologist and do some investigative thing on it! Oh dear, actually not, I'm letting myself get ahead of reality
psst also, it's Ginsburg with the S, not Ginburg
I reckon 'a report compiled weekly by Wikipedia volunteers' is an accurate enough description of what the Top 25 is, although I would personally make mention that the subject matter only covers activities on English Wikipedia, just to make things clear to idiots like me
I hope that helped, and I wish you luck with your assignment! Is it an assignment hmm Rebestalic [leave a message....] 08:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for signing up for today's online US housing edit-a-thon! Looking forward to your contributions. Please drop me a line if you have any questions. Cheers, -- M2545 ( talk) 17:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Got your email. I am right in the middle of something so I might not be able to respond before tomorrow morning. I am reading the material you linked to in your email. Unless I find something dodgy there my answer will almost certainly be "yes". -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Jasenovac_concentration_camp#This article has been mentioned by a media organization: template Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Stephenbharrison. I read
the article you published today, and I have to object to how you've framed Crimo's attempts to write an article about himself, especially the final paragraph. My read of that paragraph is that you think (or want your readers to think) that those efforts are a symptom of major narcissism, or perhaps some kind of personality disorder. To be blunt, that is a swing and a complete miss. I can't count the number of times I've deleted some "up-and-coming young artist," "social media influencer," or "entrepreneur"'s blatantly self-promotional page (and 2dgirl's deleted page is no different from any of those). Some folks take the hint the first time their creation is deleted, some keep at it and get blocked, a few keep on even after getting blocked. Few of these people are doing it because they do[n’t] recognize "objective" rules. They do not feel bound by mere policies like neutrality, avoiding self-promotion, or citing sources other than themselves
. They are doing it because they don't know those rules and have heard that getting a Wikipedia page is a big deal and it will get them noticed, misunderstanding the relationship between "fame" and "having a Wikipedia article". It's social media taken up a notch. It's a little narcissistic, sure, but I would say it probably stems from people growing up and living in a world dominated by social media. Suggesting there is any sort of correlation between "wrote a promotional Wikipedia autobiography" and "mass murderer" is, at best, a wild exaggeration.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 23:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
that this person's online history with Wikipedia and Fandom is part of the story in the same way that other sources are covering this person's history with YouTube, Discord, Spotify, Instagram, and other sites.But not the last paragraph. That is armchair something that fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia to advance a point. This point driven writing is something which I can't remember you having done before or at least to the extent that you've done it, you've marshaled actual evidence to support it. It really feels, once you learned of this account, that you started with the idea of the last paragraph in mind and decided to end there regardless of what the actual evidence showed. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
recognize “objective” rules. They do not feel bound by mere policies like neutrality, avoiding self-promotion, or citing sources other than themselves. A person who thinks rules don’t matter because nothing, in fact, matters.? I am going to say emphatically not. Those aren't even all the people who create autobiographies those are just the people who an edit filter catches - 2dgirl is not in that list. Either you didn't understand how common it is to create a Wikipedia autobiography, even when you don't qualify, or you did and decided it didn't matter. Either way it led you to a conclusion that feels off and unfair to dozens of people each day to have them labeled in the same way you're labeling a mass murderer. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Re: "Consciously or not, Wikipedia’s volunteer editors seem to have adopted a policy akin to some news publications that encourage focusing on the victims of mass shootings rather than “rewarding” the shooter with direct publicity", we do have a policy on that: WP:PERPETRATOR. "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." We also have WP:BLP1E, "We generally should avoid having an article on a person [...] if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" and WP:PSEUDO; "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context." Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 03:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
but this is still narcissistic, no?above, I would just go "no, it's not". Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
recognize “objective” rules. They do not feel bound by mere policies like neutrality, avoiding self-promotion, or citing sources other than themselves. A person who thinks rules don’t matter because nothing, in fact, matters.and you used your platform to suggest to the average Slate reader (who is already a bit different from the average person on the street) that they should think that too. And that is what has caused 4 very experienced Wikipedians to come to your user talk and pushback which is unusual in and of itself. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
After several years of distancing, I wan to invite you tomorrow (Jan 17th at 6pm) to the Boston-gathering at MIT.
Details can be found at Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/Wikipedia_22th_Anniversary_Celebration
Hope I can see you tomorrow — Johannes Kalliauer - contrib. 20:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, Stephen!
The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)