Hello, Tbhotch!
Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out
Getting Help below, ask me on
my talk page, or place
{{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
sign your name on talk pages by clicking
![Button sig.png](https://web.archive.org/web/20160411095948im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Button_sig.png)
or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the
edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!
fetchcomms 04:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia vandalism information
Low to moderate level of vandalism.
[view • purge • ]
4.0CVS / 4.4RPM according to DefconBot 03:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, it occurs to me that we have two pages performing complementary tasks and with some minor adjustments the two could be harmonised. WP:TFAREC is the newcomer - indeed, you may not have seen it. I created it to enable TFAR nominators to see relatively quickly which similar articles had been TFA in the previous six months or so and any future scheduled TFAs. It works on a series on monthly subpages (e.g. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs/November 2014) which are transcluded into the "recents" page until their time is up, when they are then transcluded to the year's archive page. The table coding means that we don't have new tables every month, allowing sorting of columns across different months without difficulty. The topic headings follow the WP:FA topic headings as far as possible (e.g. "Warfare – Biography"), although I then subdivide further, and I also give country details where possible. As people in the past have been interested in knowing how long it takes for articles to reach TFA after promotion, I give this too, along with the method of selection to show the activity or otherwise of TFAR.
TFASTATS presents similar information - it has the date, country details, topic headings and of course page view statistics. However, the way the page is set up does not allow the columns to be sorted across different months; the topic headings do not follow WP:FA (e.g. "military" instead of "warfare", "nature" instead of "biology"); the country details use flag icons, which is perhaps unnecessary decoration; and the list of articles uses {{las}} to give links to history and talk etc, which again is perhaps unnecessary given the primary purpose of the page.
So... what do you think about a "page views" column being added to the monthly recent TFAs page, then combining the two pages? That way, the list of articles/dates/topics/countries only has to be created once, when the articles are scheduled for TFA, and all that needs to be thereafter is to add the page views? It should make it easier to keep the statistics up to date, and ease your workload (as you seem to be the primary updater of the page view statistics). Best wishes, BencherliteTalk 10:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and merged WP:TFASTATS with WP:TFAREC; I am nearly finished adding page view statistics for 2014 to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/TFAs in 2014, which will then replace Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Statistics 2014. BencherliteTalk 16:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for not answering before, I'll take a look. Thank you for your job. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tbhotch, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tbhotch and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tbhotch during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —John Cline (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have closed this discussion as delete, but I will be happy to restore this into your user space if you would like to keep it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry, as far as I know there's nothing I need from that page. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikimedia genealogy project
Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, but I'm not very active nowadays. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive editing problem/Not asking for consensus
HI there,
I have a problem. User: Atomic Meltdown keeps on changing the Performers table without a through discussion by Film awards members and/or people who have been involved with the FLC process? Can you tell the user to please discuss first before making changes?
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote
Hi Tbhotch. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (78th), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
![Information.svg](https://web.archive.org/web/20160411095948im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/40px-Information.svg.png)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Book:''Maya Angelou''. Since you had some involvement with the Book:Maya Angelou' redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Precious again
A year ago, you were the 902nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 17:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Vanjagenije (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I recently started a move request. --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll
You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Trouble (Keith Richards song)
Cas Liber (
talk · contribs) 07:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Category:Singles certified gold by the Canadian Recording Industry Association
Category:Singles certified gold by the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Sent to oversight
I couldn't get it deleted...the action kept failing on me so I sent it to Oversight.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
- Thank you so much. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The third blind mouse
Hi. I was just wondering if you'd noticed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_third_blind_mouse ? I guess you've been around these discussions, it's clearly a sock - identifies itself as an experienced editor - any idea who the sockmaster is or if there are any more? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not really. I mean, I can't tell who's him because I can't see other contributions other than his at that talk page. Unfortunately we can't fish it. Unless this account make an edit that reveals himself-- genre-warring, actively participate into RM (I've seen a sockpuppet in some RMs, I think you know him) or revert in places they've been reverted-- there's not so much to do other than his name appearing in a SPI. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, "Richonchero" seems Spanish. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (
talk) 18:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no such appeal.Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- I know, but I am referring to the fact the page was deleted, but not restored. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 19:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe block evasion
Can you keep an eye on any pages like Ridin' Solo if block evasion like User:Deneoak. 123.136.111.187 (talk)
- Probably block evasion is IP Special:Contributions/82.53.179.230, who focus on Jason Derulo. Can you revert edits? 123.136.111.68 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
"A dog" at Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia
At first, I really imagined that this was a ridiculous piece of vandalism. But I looked, and you're pretty experienced. So what I'm assuming here is that you're concerned that someone looking for Lad, A Dog is going to type [[Lad:A dog]]
and end up on my project. Do I have that right?
If so, you should probably add a couple of additional capitalization shortcuts here, and I should probably add lad:A Dog (capital D) as well, no? StevenJ81 (talk) (administrator on ladwiki) 19:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Never mind: I found your commented-out note at the redirect. I'll add my additional shortcut with capital D over there, and using a Lua module, I've also added iw links (for the sake of the Danish article). StevenJ81 (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- I added it because I typed "lad: a dog" and I was redirected there. I think it has happened before, but no one had noticed it. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 19:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Turns out the capital D version has existed for over five years. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
La Gran Señora GAR
Hi Tbhotch, I have withdrawn from the GAR for La Gran Señora for reasons listed on the review page. Thank you for taking your time to review the article nonetheless. Erick (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
User page
Someone tried to send a message to you through your user page, here. Just letting you know. 100.12.206.17 (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 10:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, and thanks!
Re: "Kiss It Better". Not sure what I was thinking at the time, but thanks for being patient and willing to talk it through. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Regards. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Moves etc
Thank you for your help. I'm a bit out of my depth with all this nonsense and am now going to bed - I'm hoping that once the "rouge" pages get speedied I'll be able to move things back. I'll have a look in the morning. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. Good night. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Protection tags
I see you have been adding protection tags to various pages I have protected. You may or may not be interested, but I thought I would just let you know why I often don't do that myself. If you aren't interested, that's fine, and you don't have to read it.
I always used to add the tags myself, but then there were some occasions when I was protecting a large number of pages, all because of the same disruptive editor, which took a lot of time, and adding the time of putting the tags in sometimes made the job take more time than I had available, so that I finished up not getting all the pages protected. Because of that I took to giving tagging low priority: I would protect the pages first, and then add the tags only if I had time. There was also the fact that a bot used to add tags to any protected pages that were not tagged, so if I didn't have time to add the tags, it didn't make a lot of difference anyway. (That doesn't seem to happen any more.) Once I had got into the practice of not always adding tags, I started wondering how useful such tags were anyway. The overwhelming majority of people looking at a Wikipedia article are just reading it, not editing it, and to them the protection tag is completely irrelevant. Anyone with an established account can edit a semi-protected page anyway, so the tag is irrelevant to them. The majority of editors without established accounts probably have no idea what the little grey padlock in the corner of the page means, even if they notice it, so the tag is irrelevant to them. So we are left with what must be a very small minority out of all the people who look at the article: those who enough experience of editing Wikipedia to know what the padlock means, who do not have established account, who wish to edit the particular article in question, and who do look in the top right hand corner of the article before clicking on "edit". Such people will be able to see that the article is protected anyway, as they will see the link "View source" at the top of the page instead of "Edit". So it is really not clear to me that the tags actually serve any significant useful purpose at all. If I had never protected more than a few pages, I would probably have regarded the time it takes to tag them as negligible, but there are roughly 3300 entries in my block log over the five and a half years for which I've been an administrator, and 3000 times the time it takes to tag an article is a significant amount of time taken away from more useful tasks. I therefore now rarely do it.
None of that is any comment on your tagging the articles: I really don't mind whether you do it or not. However, I just thought you might possibly be wondering why I didn't do it, and if so you might be interested to know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I frankly don't care if an admin includes or not the padlock, I've been doing this for (I think) the same time you've been an admin, so I am accustomed to add it, without prejudice to the admin or discriminating the protected page (excluding user space). For years I did it manually, later somebody programmed a bot to do that (being bold and sounding arrogant I will say it) because of my edits adding the PP, later it stopped working sometime when I was out of the project. Now I use TW as it makes it easier. I really don't mind to spent 30 minutes adding the template (excepting in pages it will expire in hours or I can't even edit). I am conscient it is trivial for readers but it not completely trivial for editors. The way I see it, for casual readers who happen to notice it, it can be clicked and (depending the color) they will be led to WP:PP. PP explains in a nutshell what's going on with that lock, and that's it, it has no major impact in them. But the padlock may have a bigger function for "readeditors" (those who contribute sometimes to the website and full-time editors). For editors, like me, although it is totally trivial that they see a grey lock as they can still edit that page, I, for example, can know the page is semi-protected. What I'm trying to say is that, unless I click "Edit" in a page without the lock, I wouldn't know the page is protected (recently it happened to me with Adam and Eve; in the past it did happen to me with a page it was already semi-protected and I was watching against vandalism; in other words, I wasted my time and data watching for vandalism a page already indef-protected against vandalism). With the PP there, I can see the page is protected, and if needed I can check why it is protected--vandals, socks, etc.--and how much time, if it is a constant problem, and to educate myself with the problems of such page), of course that's in my case, some other editors wouldn't care less. Another one is for Template pages, which they are even more helpful, as there are 3 protections for them. I can see if I can edit it (semi), if I can edit it if I can edit templates--not my case--(template-protected), or if I can't edit it at all (full). Also, you can see it like this; you, as an admin, will never see the "View source" in a full-protected page (I think that´s how it happens). That doesn't mean readers or editors have to have the yellow lock excluded solely because they can see "View source". What I'm trying to say is, the template is trivial/specific-use (as trivial/specific-use as {{use dmy}} or Category:Living people or {{BLP sources}} for any reader or editor) but is not forbidden, not even discouraged, but the opposite, it is encouraged by the WP:PP itself: "Protected pages are normally marked with a small padlock symbol in the top corner." If you don't want to include it, it is totally your right and I support it; in fact if you massively protect pages, trying to add the pp to >25 pages will lag your device, and what you need it to protect them as soon as you can. I, on the other hand, don't mind adding it to the pages as the template will stay there days, weeks, months, or years, and I do find it has an usage. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 02:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting. You mention several relevant points that I had never thought of. Thanks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Policy discussion in progress
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Someone like You", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 17:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
You have a reply. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't Let Go (album)
Greetings, Tbhotch. Recently you moved "Don't Let Go (album)" to "Don't Let Go (Jerry Garcia Band album)". You then recreated "Don't Let Go (album)" as a redirect to "Don't Let Go", a disambiguation page. That's fine -- there's another Don't Let Go album article -- but there were a number of articles that linked to "Don't Let Go (album)", so now they link to the disambiguation page instead of to the album article. I would request that you update those articles to link to "Don't Let Go (Jerry Garcia Band album)". You might know this already but you can find them by going to the "Don't Let Go" disambiguation page and clicking on What Links Here, on the left side in the Tools section. (It's only necessary to update the articles, not the user pages or Wikipedia space pages). Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Mudwater: I do know how this works--I'm really experienced when moving pages (see logs). Also, I know multiple of these "Whatlinkshere" links link the dab page solely for technical reasons. Multiple of those links come from {{Jerry Garcia}} and {{Jerry Garcia Band}}, and it takes at least some hours to adjust themselves, let's call it "serverlag". The rest of the links are naturally links referring to JGB's album, and now it is visible where they are needed to be dabbed, which I will complete as I finish what I was doing. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I get it now. Due to the links from the navboxes, and the server lag, you can't really see what links to the disambiguation page for some hours after the navboxes are updated -- but you were planning all along on doing the updates after that. Very good, thank you. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Bad Day review
Thank you for addressing my request for a second opinion so quickly. I have already raised awareness towards the nominator of the review in order for correct the issues you have raised. Once he has done such the article will be more than suitable for a pass.
Yours sincerely, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
LARRY JAY LEVINE Page you edited.
The correct version of this page is the one with all the News Media references on the bottom, and it appears that a Wikipedia Moderator called "Mad Scientist" has vandalized it! Can you please restore the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cc02:e180:706d:52dd:8bd:a04d (talk • contribs)
- Refer to WP:Edit-war. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 21:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Notability?
Why are you placing a notability tag again after it's been removed on a Canada No.4 single by a major Canadian band? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Bad Day (Daniel Powter song)
Hello, once again.
As a reviewer I have also decided to address some of the issues you have raised in the article, such as: References, Critical reception, Performance and Lead. If you cold take a look and cross or amend them it would be fantastic. Thank You.
Yours faithfully, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Viola Beach
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
When moving files
Greetings,
when moving files please remember to remove rename tags like {{ShadowsCommons}}. Thanks! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Tbhotch. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 1, 2, 3, 4 (Plain White T's song), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No indication of consensus to move page over redirect. Thank you. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Deep web, closing
Hi there,
As a matter of general practice, please don't close discussions with an outcome that requires action you're unable to perform. Nothing to do with your judgment or anything -- it's just unnecessary and leaves room for things to get messy, as was the case with Deep web (search) (see User talk:Anthony Appleyard, and perhaps soon WP:AN). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites:, WP:NACD. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. "Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement". Also, that's for deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:RMNAC. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Gah. I guess you didn't contribute to the mess, then. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea and only creates an extra step in the process, but meh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: as someone who has done quite a few "close as moves" on RMs recently, I actually think there is a lot of use in it. These days if I close an RM that I'm unable to move myself, I tend to list the move requests at WP:RMT, as a non-controversial move. Unlike the WP:RM backlog, which is often very long and needs more eyes on it, requests at WP:RMT tend to get actioned within half a day at the maximum - Anthony Appleyard and Philg88 in particular, are a couple of admins I've noticed that will very quickly effect moves from WP:RMT, but don't tend to close full RM requests so often. So if Tbhotch or I do a non-admin RM close, then one of those admins do the actual move, it's a net win for the encyclopedia, and a better outcome than if we just let the backlog grow ever longer until an admin was able to deal with it amongst all the other things they do. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, and apologies I hadn't read the full discussion on Anthony's talk page before I wrote the above, and I can see that the Deep web thing ended up a little messy. However, I don't think that should deter us from the general principle of non-admins listing closed requests at WP:RMT. Only that the admins who process moves on that page need to understand the basic back story of the request they're being asked to carry out. In this case, Anthony should never have carried out the request to undo the move, because it was clear that the reason for its uncontroversial nature was because of the closed RM. And closed RMs are challenged by talking to the mover and going to WP:MR, not by requesting an admin to undo the move. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This is an issue that comes up pretty frequently, though I've only really been involved in the discussions regarding XfD. My opinion is colored by those discussions, to be sure, but it may be the case that it doesn't directly translate -- primarily because deletion is a much more significant consequence than a move. I still tend to think that anybody closing a discussion should have the technical ability to see it through. The RfA process is as harrowing as it is because those are the people vetted for their judgment (it's a problematic process, of course, but that's a separate conversation). If there aren't enough admins doing the work, the solution is to get more admins rather than distributing tasks that require judgment to non-admins and using admins just for technical abilities. Honestly, though, I don't really want to rehash one of these threads and don't need to be convinced. I wasn't aware of the guidelines of WP:RMNAC, so my objections are sort of moot. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough, let's leave it there then. And I do basically agree with you. Admin closures are clearly much better than non-admin closures. Having more properly competent admins to keep the backlog in check would be much better than the current status quo. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Dreams Beyond Grades
promotional article may be deleted .--Mohit852130 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Reference are not reliable article was previously deleted . This is fake article and information may be deleted .--Mohit852130 (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mohit852130 has put this information on User talk:Sitush also, and Sitush and I are discussing it there. It may be better to keep it on one page, but thank you, Mohit, your help is appreciated. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC).
I don't know why this was posted here. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 16:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
File:Deceased Organ Donation in India - 2012.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered,
File:Deceased Organ Donation in India - 2012.jpg, has been listed at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the
discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.
Stefan2 (
talk) 10:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)