User talk:Alex 21/Archive 33

List of Young Sheldon episodes

Hello. Did you happen to read the edit summary on the article where it was stated where the article's content was taken? --Robloxian56 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Robloxian56, please read the details for attribution in the notice on your talk page. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 02:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Christmas Specials and Twentieth Anniversary Specials Dr. Who

Hello, recently you reverted one of my edits to the list of Doctor Who episodes by removing the inclusion of the christmas speicals and the twentieth anniversary special. I know I didn't correctly denote them and kinda messed up the page, but I thought that it was necessary to put in these epsiodes as they should be included in the episode count as much as the actual season based episodes are. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.144.198 (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Specials are not and have never been considered as part of any particular season or series by the BBC, and hence Wikipedia follows the same format. We only list them in particular episodes tables for 1) convenience, and 2) that is how they are grouped together on home media releases. -- Alex^TW 06:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Semi protected your talk page for a week. Let me know if you need it longer. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Cheers for that; a week should be fine. -- Alex^TW 11:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Lookin for a range block please. It's getting very silly and needs to be stopped. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Alex, you really need to get the admins to put a stop to these disruptive, slanderous attacks on you. It's getting out of hand - an article on a classic episode of Doctor Who just got vandalised with slander against you. Ignoring people to give them less attention sometimes works, but this is not going to be the case here. Someone is very determined continue making disruptions, until they stop. GUtt01 (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

GUtt01, see above, CambridgeBayWeather has been great enough to request a range block (which I've never looked into, so I didn't/don't know how it really works). Thank you for that! I've been reporting and reverting the editors of late, as I agree that it's getting out of hand. -- Alex^TW 22:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Doctor Who Series 11 soundtrack.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey, the tremendous work you did to improve numerous articles to a GA status is really extraordinary! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: Thank you! I do try my best. -- Alex^TW 01:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Total ratings for Doctor Who

Hi. I just wanted to know if there is any other way to use the rating sentence without "received", because this word becomes repetitive (three mentions in two subsections). Sebastian James (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian James, in the DoctorWhoNews.net sources, AI is listed as "Episode HAD an Appreciation Index of". Critical reception could use "gained" or "earned". Hope that helps. -- Alex^TW 08:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Episode Count Update

According WP:TV and MOS:TV, we don't update episode count until it is airing. When did it became ok for you to update 1-2 minutes earlier than the actual time airing? — Lbtocth^talk 01:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Lbtocth, my apologies for being several seconds early. By the time the page had finished saving my edits, it was on time. I'm sure I'll have to deal with the repercussions of how it will greatly affect the site and has ruined the encyclopedia! I know, I know, I'm a terrible person! -- Alex^TW 01:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You maybe claimed to be several seconds, but the timestamps said otherwise. You have done this on many occasions on various TV series. — Lbtocth^talk 06:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Lbtocth, oh no! One minute! Lord forgive my trespasses, for I have sinned! The reputation of this site is now in shatters! And "many" occasions? Didn't you know you can't add stuff to this site without being able to back it up? -- Alex^TW 06:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You want some receipts, here you go: [1] [2] [3] [4]
This one was almost an hour early [5]. — Lbtocth^talk 09:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Lbtocth, so, you freely admit that you have been WP:FOLLOWING me for over nine months. One minute is nothing and there is no solid rule about updating, so get off my back, else I will file a report against you for wikistalking. I've already told you to stop posting to my talk page, which I have the right to, so consider this a second demand to not post here again. -- Alex^TW 10:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Hi, any chance if you can help me copy edit on A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

NeoBatfreak, sorry, I've never seen nor followed the movie, and thus wouldn't be able copyedit it with the knowledge required. Best of luck. -- Alex^TW 06:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thank you for being on top of all the Avengers: Endgame edits! I was going with the rumors and thought the trailer would be out at 9 am EST, and was ready to be up then to perform many of the task you did, but they beat me by an hour! Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Suleyman the Magnificent

Why did you undo my move? Generally if you are reverting another editor's move you should explain why ... I don't really think that this is a "technical move", which is only supposed to be for uncontroversial moves. There wasn't even any attempt at discussion, and based on the sources I've seen the spelling "Suleiman" is antiquated.Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System, it was listed by AjaxSmack at WP:RM/TR under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves". As I have pinged the requesting editor, they will now be aware of your revert and warring over the move. It seems that it was your move that was not discussed. If you disagree, please take it to the article's talk page. -- Alex^TW 06:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The title has been stable nearly a month. This is not a non-controversial move. t should be obvious that reverting a move that has been stable for nearly a month is not a non-controversial technical request. The best course of action would have been for it to be discussed with the original mover and that is frankly what you should have told the editor at RM. The reason for disputing a justified change needs to be explained on the talk page by the editor who is challenging the move. If that had happened, I would have started the RM discussion myself. That's why I was trusted with the perm. Moving this as a "technical" request was completely inappropriate and accusing an editor of "warring over the move" is only compounding that error. RM/technical move is not a justification for this move, you can move it again and provide a justification as an editor, and I won't revert but there needs to be a justification. This is not a non-controversial technical request. Please don't do something like this again.Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System, thank you for your opinion. Don't perform controversial moves, and I won't have to do something like this again, will I? Any move can be considered controversial if there is no consensus for it and the move is contested; moves can be contested years after they were performed. Now, as I said: take it to the article's talk page. -- Alex^TW 07:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System, your recent undiscussed move of this article from a title that had been stable for 12 years should have been done through the WP:RM process to begin with. You should bear the burden of proof that the title Suleiman the Magnificent is not the correct title rather than putting the burden on other editors to defend a long-time, stable title. Note WP:TITLECHANGES: "Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title." I don't oppose your new title per se, but evidence should be marshal(l)ed and input given before it is conducted. —  AjaxSmack  15:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would say that the edit history at Suleiman the Magnificent shows that Seraphim System has abused the page mover right. The PMR right is not meant to be used to make controversial moves, and certainly isn't meant to be used in what looks like a move war. I would suggest revocation of the right, per WP:PMRR. RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Shannon Sullivan/Template:Brief

I just wanted to briefly pull you up on the removal of Sullivan as a source. Seeing as the source has made it through multiple FA and GA candidacies (e.g.), I think there is already a general acceptance that the site is a reliable source. In any case, I don't think there's a consensus to treat it as not an RS, just to remove it in the EL sections (which I agree with, to be honest). Sceptre (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Just because something passes inclusion in a GA or FA, that doesn't mean that it is automatically acceptable or a "Move Straight To Go" move; in fact, I think there's previously been discussions of making guidelines that explicitly state such a thing. The site is a fan site, and thus automatically does not meet WP:RS. Quoting the deletion discussion, the consensus of which was "delete": This seems like blatant promotion for a particular fan-site when, indeed, there are hundreds of such sites out there / Fan sites should not, and never should be, considered as a reliable source / No indication that an exception should be made here; or that the person running the website has access to "knowledgeable sources" (or is one). It should never have been added, and we always need to keep and update Wikipedia on a strict level of reliable sources. -- Alex^TW 00:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Derrick Sherwin

As a major contributor to Dr Who articles, you should have reaslised that this information is fully sourced in the Derrick Sherwin page with an attribution to that page's contributors in the edit summary - so fix it yourself if you are concerned rather than just wholsale removal of content; you could also have contacted me whatever WP:BRD says, and I'll also point out that the content was not contentious and is not a BLP. . Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC).

Kudpung, unsourced information cannot be kept via the policy of WP:V. It is up to the editor themselves to make sure that they source their information correctly, not other people unrelated to the edit. If you want the content on the page, then you have to copy across the sources as well, and make sure that you attribute the copied content correctly. -- Alex^TW 01:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Cache clearing issue?

Hey Alex. I've just been monitoring what has been still showing as linking to Untitled Avengers film after the move, and there are still a quite a bit of articles in the mainspace showing links. These are all most likely from former links in the various navboxes on the film article. I've doubled checked the links are no longer in these navboxes, cleared my browser cache, and done a few purges, but it doesn't seem to help. Any chance you might have an idea of why a lot of these articles are still showing as linking or know of any other tricks to help purge the Wikipedia servers? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Favre, I was actually following the same thing when we performed the moves and updates last week, but forgot to go back to it; I'm surprised there's still so many. I'm not sure why they're not clearing out, but I do know of a few tricks (1.3 and 1.4 of WP:PURGE), so I'll take a look into it for you. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 23:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

All  done! The only links now are on non-mainspace pages (Wikipedia, talk, user, user talk, etc.) As a result of the purging, Special:WhatLinksHere/Production of Avengers: Infinity War and the untitled Avengers sequel was also cleared out. Also moved and updated Template:Editnotices/Page/Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame. -- Alex^TW 00:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for the help, as always! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

script-linecolour bug

I'm not sure if this has been fixed since March, but the script seems to be a little over-eager. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YouTube_Rewind&diff=prev&oldid=830222711 One of the mistaken edits was still on the page - "FFFFFF and gold dress". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolio 226 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Coolio 226, apologies about that, and thanks for the heads up! -- Alex^TW 02:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere Boys

What's with erasing summaries and changing the color on the Nowhere boys Season 4 listing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjawarriordex (talk • contribs)

@Ninjawarriordex: Apologies about the summary removal, that was unintentional. Separate colours for each season, S4 was too similar to S1 and didn't match the series overview. -- Alex^TW 02:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WP:TV discussion

You are invited to a WP:TV discussion about Pigsonthewing and his actions on the infoboxes. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay's 24 Hours to Hell and Back

Hey there. Noticed you did some color work on List of Monster Jam episodes, so I was wondering if you could help with Gordon Ramsay's 24 Hours to Hell and Back. If you take a look at my recent edit, I just added all the info/tables for season 2. I had no clue about formatting or what the colors should be for seasons, so I just took the colors/formats from the page for Kitchen Nightmares. If you could help with what I might've gotten wrong, that would be great. Thank you again! Magitroopa (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Magitroopa, the colours are fine, but I've just made some formatting changes to the article. Cheers! -- Alex^TW 02:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello AlexTheWhovian, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 07:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:TV

Thank you for this it was accidentally removed by me. Cheers. Sid95Q (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate vote

Just a heads up: [6]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, I completely forgot I'd already voted. Sorry! -- Alex^TW 02:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries, just combine your opinion and stay cool. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for solving our edit problem for the redirect "Blocked" - Andrewbdfe 23:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Andrewbdfe, no problems. Clearly a contentious issue, and a discussion should proceed on the topic before changing a redirect that was stable for eleven years. -- Alex^TW 23:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian, your welcome - Andrewbdfe 01:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This may interest you

I thought this may be interesting to you [7] I had reported Matt14451 before for abusing his IP and suspected he may have been DownFame. Sure that didn't come to anything but wow, it looks like he was busy on here trolling. Esuka323 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Esuka323, wow is all I can say. I already had a report typed up months ago to file after I was suspicious of HumansFan (talk · contribs) popping up as a new account solely to support him and oppose me at a different discussion, but I never got around to it. But AlexTheDoctor (talk · contribs) as well? Who was specifically created just to troll my name and I? And six accounts? Thank you for bringing this to my attention! -- Alex^TW 23:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Revision 'List of Marvel Cinematic Universe tv series'

Dear Alex,

Due to you recent revision of my latest edit, I have decided to explain to you why I edited it. As you already know, Tina Minoru already made a small appearance in the MCU movie Doctor Strange. However, the article states that a different version of the character appears in the Runaways tv series. This is not correct as both the movie as well as the series takes place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). The character is portrayed by different actors, but it is the same character... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brongers457 (talk • contribs)

@Brongers457: If the article states it's a different version, then it's a different version. If you disagree, please start a discussion on the article's talk page. -- Alex^TW 02:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As noted by the included sources, the executive producers of Runaways acknowledge the fact a character called Tina appeared in Doctor Strange, but pointed out she was never actually named onscreen, and thus, the version on the TV series is a different version. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for List of Fuller House episodes

An article that you have been involved with ( List of Fuller House episodes ) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ('Fuller House (Season #) ). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:List of Fuller Episodes. Thank you.  mrwoogi010  ^Talk 01:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

James Bond Pages

Hi Alex, not sure how familiar you are with the James Bond franchise, but you're an experienced editor and I thought of you when it comes to certain pages over there. There's currently three different pages about the Bond films: James Bond in film, James Bond filmography, List of James Bond films. For many months, I've been attempting to change the pages because they look incredibly outdated and the box office table in particular is truly awful. All of these articles are pretty bad in my opinion. However, there's 3(ish) users who monitor the pages (basically self-described "admins") who seem completely intolerant to any change whatsoever. Literally anything I do gets reverted, and I don't appear to be respected enough to be listened to, so I was wondering if you - being significantly more knowledgeable in Wikipedia rules etc. - could possibly have a look.

For example, I made a few edits on the List of James Bond films, attempting to alter the god-awful box office table. You'll find the edits in the edit history, of course. I only made a few changes but I thought it was better than it is now. This is probably one you'd be better with since it's a box office table and I'm assuming you know the true ins-and-outs of how box office tables should be. I also tried altering the James Bond in film page with a few overview tables at the beginning of different sections (as per other movie franchises). Again, you'll be able to switch between the current version, and my (now-reverted) version in the edit history. I don't see anything wrong with it, but the admins seem to require a full blown essay on why I've done my edits.

Sorry to bother you and no worries if you don't want to do anything. Thanks. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

TheMysteriousEditor, no problems with your question. I don't know much about the articles or film articles, so it may be best to take it to MOS:FILM and/or WP:FILM, and gain a firm consensus there. Do be aware, however, that you are well within your rights to report the other editor at WP:AN3 for violating WP:3RR at List of James Bond films for more than three reverts within 24 hours, including a revert against an IP. -- Alex^TW 03:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Update and request

Hi Alex,

It seems as though you are checking in from your break/vacation. Thought I'd run two things by you. 1) Our old "pal" Joeymiskulin finished his most recent block in the last few days. He then proceeded to continue on with the same disruptive behavior primarily by vandalizing infoboxes. I reported his behavior to the admins who had blocked him previously and went about reverting his edits. It wasn't soon after that he was blocked again for another month. 2) I'd also like to point out to you a recent conflict that has been ongoing in two different locations. It basically started when one editor attempted to reformat the episode table over at Who Is America? by changing all of the paragraphs into bulleted lists. He proceeded with an edit warring posture but things seemingly cooled down for a few days following the intervention of a few other editors. Then today, two separate debates raged on here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Bulletizing episode summaries at Who Is America? and here: Talk:Who Is America?#Plot Summaries. The editor pushing for this bulleted list change attempted to change MOS:TV without a consensus and quickly engaged in editor warring-type behavior over there. And, after an attempt to determine local consensus, he promptly closed the discussion on the article's talk page. All in all, its been rather a mess and a headache. The sort of stuff I try to avoid on Wikipedia. Maybe you have a take on the whole thing. Thought I'd at least point it out to you. Hope your holidays have been well. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

BoogerD, indeed I am! Back from the pool of family drama that always arises around the holidays. I saw that Joey was back. Eventually he'll be indef'ed, and it'll be another hassle dealt with. I've got a bit to look over for the next few days, so I'll take a look at the discussions and see what the result is. Thanks for bringing them to me! -- Alex^TW 09:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolution

On the draft, you are adament that "Resolution" is the only episode of 2019. This is WP:SYNTHESIS, as you are drawing up a conclusion from an article only that stating the next full series is in 2020, and makes no references to specials in 2019, so hypothetically, there could be two or more specials in 2019, which doesn't contradict the article source. The sentence is also argueably WP:TRIVIA. You also claim that when Chibnall said the Daleks wouldn't appear in Series 11, he was including the special as well, and "two weeks weeks left of shooting" means that two weeks until filming "Resolution" ends. This is not made clear at all in the article, and therefore this should be left out. Kind regards TedEdwards 19:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source backing up the statement of hypothetically, there could be two or more specials in 2019? I certainly haven't seen any; I'd be ecstatic if there were more specials in 2019! Unfortunately, it's not the case, and sources only back up the fact that the New Year's Special is set for 2019, and Series 12 is set for 2020, with no further episodes. Either way, It will be the first and only installment of the time travel series in 2019, making “Resolution” the only new Doctor Who we’ll see on TV in 2019. As for the Daleks, Chibnall stated on 19 July that “We seem to be filming 11 episodes, and it’s only a series of 10”, and the very next day, “We’ve got two weeks left of shooting", with filming concluding on 4 August (the two weeks later). Hence, the talk about filming includes all eleven episodes, as the filming blocks included eleven episode with no traditional break between filming the series finale and the special episode. -- Alex^TW 10:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, then, why not use those sources you've given that explicitly state there's one episode in 2019, which the one used in the draft doesn't. btw. when I say hypothetically, I'm refering to events that could theoretically happen without contradicting the sources in the article, so I'm not saying they're actually happening (or even likely to happen) and I wouldn't write that in any article, I was only said that to try to point out a flaw in the use of the Radio Times source. Hope I made myself clear. In regards to the Dalek issue, I admit I'm still a bit uneasy, but the source you gave seems to confirm that Chibnall was basically lying about the Daleks. Happy holidays and enjoy the special! TedEdwards 16:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

btw. I've changed the source saying that Resolution is the only episode of 2019 to the cinema blend one you gave. And regarding your username change, it says on your userpage Alex 21. Not much to say. Twenty-something year old Australian guy who's a serious avid TV series watcher, and more addicted to Doctor Who. Hence the name. You might want to change that :). TedEdwards 09:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Good idea, cheers! -- Alex^TW 23:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hello Alex. I gotta tell ya I'm gonna miss the Whovian part of your old username. Well it's almost 2019 for you so I hope you have a safe and happy Journey into the new year! MarnetteD|Talk 03:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: And a Happy New Year to you! Unfortunately I will too, as AlexTheWhovian is my handle on most sites, but I've received too many negative comments in the past about my relationship to Doctor Who-related articles. New Year, New Me? -- Alex^TW 03:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. Also it means your ready to take on the role at the 20th regeneration. Oh wait does the War Doctor mess with that number too :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Your signature

I hope you can update your signature (it should directly link to Alex 21). Happy new year! Hhkohh (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hhkohh, I'll update it today. Cheers! -- Alex^TW 23:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

New name

For a second, I saw "Alex 21" editing and felt they might be impersonating you, then I came to your page and saw it was you! Will take some getting used to for sure on my part ha. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ha, no worries! Still the same old me, minus the Whovian (see above). It'll take some getting used to on my part as well. Happy New Year! -- Alex^TW 23:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)