Archives:

story · music · places

Today I remember a singer who impressed me on stage. - The image shows a wine leaf that changed colours to a bold pattern of red and greens, with the sun shining through it. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

today in memory of a friend who would have been 110, singing Brahms conducted by his son. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have three biographies on the main page today, miss a fourth one, nominated a fifth, that means little time for other matters. My places now include La Scala, - "see" music, Verdi three times, and twice in my story! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for support in November! - On St. Cecilia's Day - patron saint of music - I remember a composition by Benjamin Britten, and have a woman on the main page who illustrated songs, with a sense of humour. My music features our latest choral Abendlob, with English music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is a Bach cantata, mentioned with the Christmas cantata which is up for FAC again, and the conductor of the video is mentioned by name in movement 1 of the Christmas cantata. Today's ecumenical service was dominated by brass sound, - I placed a pic on top of the church's article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... At some userspace pages relating to old edits at User talk:Chris mahan and User:Chris mahan. This is an example where my own page protection from 2009 has come back to bite me. I need to update the former page because it's no longer correct, similarly to this edit of mine; see the links relating to this user at User:Nemo bis/Bug 323 revisions/positive rev user (for example this edit used to be attributed to the username "Chris_Mahan" but is now under the username "Christopher Mahan"). Also, contrary to my log message, this user's current account is no longer an admin; I made the protection long before the admin inactivity policy was implemented. I don't think the protection is necessary now anyway (and would drop it myself if I could), but it could also be dropped to extendedconfirmed or something. I don't have any need to edit User:Chris mahan, but ... it's just the principle of the thing. The user/talk page are on my watchlist so I'll keep a metaphorical eye on them. This seems like far too much of an oddball request for the regular channels. Graham87 (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Tamzin:, as you seem to be active at the moment. Graham87 (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Thanks muchly. Graham87 (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten about this Phabricator comment from 2019 and had obviously never properly taken it in to account at the time. Graham87 (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you forgot about a "temp" page back in 2016 Talk:Uranus/Archive 4/Temp Polygnotus (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: Ta for the note ... turns out I dropped the ball on this one, rather than forgetting about it as such. The main discussion leading to the creation of that page was Talk:Uranus/Archive 3 § Archiving (also see this AN discussion and this message on my talk page). I'll history-merge the temp page to archive 4, now that that archive exists, because that's a harmless action. Pinging the people involved who are still active: @Moonraker12 and Serendipodous:. Graham87 (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: Lol I just found a "temporary" undeletion I never undid from 2011 at Empirical solution of the Monty Hall problemEmpirical solution of the Monty Hall problem. Could some kind admin please undelete Talk:Empirical solution of the Monty Hall problem for me, since the article history is there, now in its complete form for the first time? But then I was tempted to nominate the thing for deletion under G6 ... or maybe RFD, but that felt like overkill. Graham87 (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. Wikiarcheology sounds like a complicated hobby! Polygnotus (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: It can be. Other times I've acciddentally changed content while doing wiki-archaeology are this situation with the disability etiquette page in 2008 (which I notice was just deleted properly) and this one at Theorem-provingTheorem-proving in 2009 (which I also didn't know about until recently ). Graham87 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was looking at Woolwich Polytechnic (disambiguation) on Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge/26 and realized the history from Woolwich Polytechnic (disambiguation) would overlap the deleted history of Woolwich Polytechnic. If merged then the was subsequently deleted then undeleted this would leave intermingled overlapping diffs of parallel versions.

I looked to see what others were doing but most cases with deleted histories are not overlapping or just redirects so would not cause the mess that the Woolwich Polytechnic example would. Then I realised that creating these pages with overlapping histories and deleted histories can surely happen all the time if a page is deleted then any autoconfirmed user could move a page over the top.

I thought one way to deal with these would be to split the history and leave the old history deleted/redirected as a draft to end up like when dealing with a request to delete a redirect with substantive history. So I guess the question is although having pages with overlapping history in the deleted edits must happen a lot with normal deletions and moves, what is the way we should handle these cases where we can see the possibility for future parallel versions mixed together? KylieTastic (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: Yeah, I'd move the deleted versions somewhere else. Or if they actually belong with another article, move them there. If they're not important at all, you could move them to a /temp page or something. It's unlikely but not impossible that the revisions would be mixed together by accidental undeletions these days. Graham87 (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you think it's always worth doing or is it not a worry in cases like 3 World Trade Center where there are 4 redirect edits. Also last night I did find an example were there were a couple of deleted non redirect edits someone had left overlapping. Do you think the rule should be always try to split; only if there are non-redirect overlapping deleted edits; or only if a 'substantive' overlapping history? Also I realised I should have thought about this deeper sooner - so is it worth me going back and checking if any I've done before need the deleted history spiting out? KylieTastic (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: I'd say only split them if there's a substantive overlapping history. And how different the overlapping history is from the existing edits should also be a factor in how concerned you should be about accidental undeletion. Graham87 (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reviewed all of my past merges where the target had deleted content and the only one I think may be an issue is 4 World Trade Center. I'm not sure what is best this this one as it appears there was another cut-paste move at 07:33, 24 December 2011 from what is now the deleted history to the current history. If you could take a look I would appreciate it. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: I can't access the text of the deleted edits, only the metadata, but from checking the latter I'd say yes, these should be undeleted. The only logical place I can think of moving them to is to Talk:4 World Trade Center/Old history, just because of how much page history there is and the fact that there's no logical article target (and this apparent text merge). I've done this sort of thing several times before; see Talk:Air force/Old history for an example. The procedure is: move the article out to a /temp page with no redirect, undelete the deleted edits, move them to the /Old history talk subpage, move the article back (without a redirect), then add an explanation to the "/Old history" talk subpage and a link to it from the main talk page like this. . My comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#History Viewer User group? are vaguely relevant to this thread, in case you haven't already seen that. Graham87 (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the pre-cut-and-paste-move talk page from Talk:150 Greenwich StreetTalk:150 Greenwich Street to Talk:4 World Trade Center/Archive 1. People reading this thread might be interested in a curio containing the very earliest history of the the article about the September 11 attacks, World Trade Center/Plane crashWorld Trade Center/Plane crash. Graham87 (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opps sorry, I completely forgot you could not see the deleted edits. I was thinking of moving out the history to another page as you suggested so I'll do that, but probably tomorrow as clearly my brain is not 100% focused today. Thanks for your advice. KylieTastic (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: Waaaaait ... would it make logical sense to attach those deleted edits to 4 World Trade Center (1975-2001)4 World Trade Center (1975-2001) (i.e. are they about roughly the same topic, as it seems from the text merge I linked above)? (As distinct from 4 World Trade Center (1975–2001), with the en dash rather than the hyphen, which has a newer history, and merging the deleted edits there wouldn't work as well). If so, that would be better than the talk page solution. There's also the small matter that the early history of Talk:4 World Trade Center also refers to the deleted edits. Graham87 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so as it is definitely written about post 2001 - you can basically see the text in this edit which was another cut-paste move. KylieTastic (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the recovery and it is at Talk:4 World Trade Center/Old history now. KylieTastic (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: Thanks; works for me! Graham87 (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: Yeah, it's about the building that was destroyed in 2001 (see the hatnote, among other things). At least we have all the history though! Graham87 (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was the messiest I've seen and thankfully they are rare. As you say we have the history and no chance of them getting mixed together now. So just the other 12090 to do :) KylieTastic (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, lol. Graham87 (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: I wonder if it might be worth undeleting the 2004 edits at 3 World Trade Center? I probably would've, especially if it was an honest-to-goodness attempt at making an article. Also I think recording where the redirect went *before* the article was created would be interesting. Graham87 (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have recovered those as they were the original good faith attempt. KylieTastic (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if your last comment on ANI was a violation of WP:TAIVDISCLOSE, but it looks to me like it's skirting the line. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind, I guess that could fall under the "reasonably believed to be necessary" clause. Sorry. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: Yeah I did review the guidelines before posting it. It's exquisitely difficult *not* to make the IP obvious in this case. And, as you may well have seen, they've been blocked here for at least eight years by now ... Graham87 (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't see, as I decided not to request TAIV until I really needed it, so that I couldn't leak something I wasn't supposed to. :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: You didn't need TAIV to see that. You just needed to follow my link in the report to the earlier username, Hoggardhigh. Graham87 (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there were slight (very slight) wording changes that would be better. For example, instead of saying /64, saying something like 'common range' would probably be better. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@45dogs: Yeah but in this case I needed to be specific about exactly what I wanted blocked. There's a reason that User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64 exists; I can't assume that evvry admin just knows how these IP's work. I just noticed your close there; thanks for that and thanks to the admin who performed the block. Graham87 (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan @45dogs: For what it's worth, my reading of the WMF disclosure policy, gleaned in the course of writing WP:TAIVDISCLOSE and supplemented by some talks with WMF people, is that the strict-ish no-disclosure rule is really meant to apply specifically to "<TA> is on <IP>" and things that state that by proxy like "<TA> is also the user who made <some edit by a legacy IP>". Saying that someone's bouncing around a /64 should definitely be fine; that's metadata about an IP address, which Legal explicitly said we can disclose under the same liberal disclosure rules as TA-to-TA connections. I do not think that saying there exist legacy IP edits with the same pattern would be an issue either; it would be a closer thing if Graham had said "on the same page" or "that admin so-and-so blocked on such-and-such date", but the TAIV disclosure policy is not like the CU policy where there's an expectation for CUs to go out of their way to not let their words be used to infer someone's IP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Thanks for the further info and context. Yeah, as you probably know, most (but not all) IPV6 addresses work that way, so I didn't think that was particularly personal info; it's sorta like saying "this person has two arms", which is true for most (but not all) people; I know not everyone has an IPV6 address, so the analogy doesn't quite hold, but it's the best I could come up with. But if they had an unusual IP configuration, I'd have to be a bit more careful. I'm sorry, but I just had to make this edit to your comment, given that I've had an occasional side project of focusing on interesting uses of {{CURRENTYEAR}} in the main namespace as of late. (I'm OK with how it's used on the Wikipedia namespace page, just not on the talk page). I also think it's worth noting that I contacted the blocking admin by email thanking them for the block and also querying about the block length; private contact seemed the best way to go under the circumstances. Graham87 (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even an unusual IP configuration would usually be okay to disclose, unless it were incredibly distinctive. For instance, saying "the user is bouncing all over an IPv6 /32, but their address within each /64 subnet is consistent" would suggest the user is on Jio, but that's fine given that you're also allowed to just say "the user is on Jio", a statement true of 1 in 16 people on Planet Earth. Something very unusual, like "the user's IPv6 address contains an approximation of their company's name, spelled using hexadecimal digits", would be more where it maybe crosses the line, since that's getting close to just saying "this user is a Facebook employee", which is probably too specific to share. (See Special:Search/~User talk: intitle:"FACE:B00C".) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes; I've loved the Facebook one for years! Graham87 (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{Reply to}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)

Happy template editing! ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

The December calendar pic shows the simple-formed leaves of a shrub turned red, one twig in the foreground with frost around the edges of each leave, many similar ones further back, - almost abstract. Organists: I went to see the church in Paris where Guy Morançon worked, quite a place, and wish Happy birthday to Gabriel Dessauer, - enjoy music he played, Dance Toccata, by another Paris organist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More Morançon: listen to his Mendelssohn on a great instrument, illustrated with historic images, - share with your dear mother, perhaps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Sounds great! I came to know the sonata you linked earlier this year because Felix Hell performed it in his concert here in August, as I described previously. Graham87 (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small world again, - there's a small Cavaillé-Coll organ in a suburb of Mainz, and I once went to a concert there, and they played the six Sonatas. - I woke up to a a Bach cantata, GA by an editor's first review (you may remember that the same gave me one earlier, and you almost blocked him for it), and it was also the first time that I was involved (a bit) in a pictured ITN blurb. More pics of buildings by him on my talk. They would be hard to describe. I added two videos to the story, both in English, - best watch with your mother ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I brought Wozzeck to the main page, not by me but I noticed the quality and the centenary. Enjoy plenty of music, three events in about 24 hours including 4 Bach cantatas and his Magnificat with the Christmas interpolations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today's 1715 Advent Bach cantata translates to "Prepare the ways", - listen to quite stunning music if you haven't ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Perfect background music for preparing the ways to make this edit to List of VFL/AFL players to have scored a goal with their first kick (and quite a contrast!); Australian rules football isn't a topic I usually edit or even think about, but I noticed a hole that needed to be filled ... Graham87 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laughter for Christmas - enjoy the season! - Interesting Toccata by Théodore Dubois as a postlude, and that piece isn't even mentioned in his list of works. Can we write that article together, perhaps? Next year. Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for helping complete histmerges. Your work is greatly appreciated! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333: Thanks very much! Graham87 (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redoing ping to @MrLinkinPark333:; thanks Gerda! Graham87 (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Iok-1xylophone and Democritus3000 could be related to Wazdanny as well? They overlap with Ryleyoneill on Mary Millicent Wigg and the edit summary Dear assessors, I am an emerging art historian based in Perth, Western Australia, and have reviewed and edited this page on an important WA artist. I hope my contribution helps to have this page published as it is part of an important contribution to artists who lived and worked in Australia. is interesting. On the other hand the subject seems to be notable and CU can't help us here. Toadspike [Talk] 10:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: Yes, I think so. I didn't look at Wigg's page history; thanks for that. I'd agree she seems notable, if marginally so. Graham87 (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you and yours a fantastic Christmas (or holiday season for those who don’t celebrate) and all the best for 2026. 🎄 ❄️☃️ Here’s to a collaborative, constructive year ahead — with good faith, good edits, and just enough discussion to get things done! (and here's Sir Nils Olav inspecting his troops... one of my favourite POTDs) Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: Thanks, and the same to you! Graham87 (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:08, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: Thanks, and likewise re holiday greetings. Interesting photos and nice alt text. And thanks for the kind words about wiki-archaeology; it's a never-ending quest. Graham87 (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: Also, congratulations/commiserations on being elected to Arbcom! :-) Graham87 (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 1980 album, Negativland, I thought you might find this anecdote interesting.

Around 1986 my mother was attending group grief counseling in Berkeley, California, for the loss of her fourth child, my sister, when she met another grieving mother who said her surviving son was in the band Negativland. This woman shared that the band's first album was unusual in that it was praised by the blind community because each LP sleeve was decorated with textured wallpaper, making it very easy for fans to identify by touch.

I have never edited that album page, but it has a bit of that fact in it, taken from AllMusic.

All the best from rainy NorCal... Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: Oh wow, cool; I didn't know about that! The only other example I know of like that is Stevie Wonder's Talking Book album. We're about to hit a summer heat wave for Christmas. Hope you keep dry while I try to keep cool down here. Graham87 (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I love Stevie's Braille message.

Missus Bink says she remembers from her Tower Record days the small-run indie albums by Muslimgauze as having strange textures pasted on manually. The albums had to be wrapped in plastic at the store because they tended to shed.

There are more famous albums identifiable by touch, for instance Catch a Fire by the Wailers in 1973 came in a hinged clamshell cover to resemble a Zippo lighter. The Stones' Sticky Fingers had a real zipper in '71. Some albums have had die-cut portions removed to reveal the inner sleeve. Led Zeppelin III's cut-outs revealed instead a rotating cardboard disc with additional bandmember head shots that might line up with the holes, making it obvious they were catering only to the sighted. The 12-inch single "Blue Monday" by New Order was die-cut in the shape of a floppy disk—very tech-ey. Other albums have had a design embossed into the cardboard, for instance 1970's John Barleycorn Must Die reminiscent of burlap, or Metallica bearing a small raised coiled snake, not quite as easy to locate by touch on a full shelf of LPs. The 2010 album Highlighter had a card-stock belt wrapped around it that could be refastened after listening by way of a pair of notches. A weaponized design was released as The Return of the Durutti Column in 1980 with sandpaper on the outside which would abrade the neighboring albums on the shelf. Fun stuff! Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: Indeed! I'd heard about the Sticky Fingers example but not the others. Ironically I'm digital-only when it comes to music ... I used to accidentally scratch CD's all the time due to coordination problems relating to my preterm birth; I'd hate to think how I would have gone with vinyl records. Cassettes were OK with me though. Graham87 (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that Amazon Alexa or one of her digital sisters would be quite a help with music on demand. However you get your music, enjoy! Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: Oh yes, in my case the Google Home Mini for background listening ... but when I'm at my computer, nothing beats the granularity of a text search on, say, Youtube Music, which I got for my Google Home Mini because of the Joni Mitchell Spotify boycott (in response to the one by Neil Young) and very much enjoy recordings by the Netherlands Bach Society on it. Graham87 (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I bought Pink Floyd's 1994 album The Division Bell on compact disc soon after release - I had all of their previous albums on vinyl. By this time the record companies were making it difficult to obtain the vinyl editions - either they were made in small quantities, or sold only through selected retailers, or overpriced compared to compact disc. Anyway, not mentioned in our article on the album is that the CD box was unique to this release: of the three plastic components, the inner tray of the case has an inscription in Braille, which may be felt along the left-hand side of the front face when the CD case is closed. Unfortunately it's not on the outer edge, so that you can't feel it by running your fingers along the CD cases on a shelf. I believe that the Braille inscription is simply the two words "PINK FLOYD", but when I find it again, I must examine it carefully to verify this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Interesting. @Pigsonthewing: may well know something about this. I just managed to find this Steve Hoffman Music Forums thread about Braille on album/CD artwork which mentions, quite aptly, Red Rose Speedway. Graham87 (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found the CD. Then I fed the presumed text through Template:Braille cell, thus: {{braille cell|P|I|N|K| |F|L|O|Y|D}} with this result: ⠏⠊⠝⠅⠀⠋⠇⠕⠽⠙, which is identical to the dot pattern on the CD case (there are also two tactile shapes which are definitely not Braille, they may be abstract art). One thing I notice is that the dot patterns for P, F and L are not much different from the shapes of the letters themselves. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Wow, interesting. Also in contracted grade II braille, the "i-n" would be represented by dots 3-5 and the capital signs would be represented by dot 6, but they were generally not used in Braille made in the UK until the introduction of Unified English Braille, which was after the release of the album. Graham87 (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ata mārie from across the ditch!

Sorry to be discussing business this far into the holiday season. I've been asked to get your blessings on reversing a historical ip range block. Range, Request source. Hope you get plenty of sun!

-w1n W1nston269 (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@W1nston269: Ahiahi mārie your time. Or, in my local indigenous language, kaya. I've replied there; I'm happy for the block to be undone by anyone. Unfortunately I'm be getting a bit too much sun and heat so I'll be trying to stay out of it until it cools down again. Hope you have a good Christmas and new year. Graham87 (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Graham87, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abishe: Thanks, and the same to you. Graham87 (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]