User talk:Dreamy Jazz

As edited by AnuYog ^{talk | contributions} on 27 12 2019

1.43.0-wmf.20 (ef87455)

Congratulations

I have closed your RfA as successful. Good luck with your new tools! Maxim_(talk) 23:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Maxim, thank you for closing the RfA and the good luck. I would like also say thank you to everyone involved in my RfA including commenting, asking questions and !voting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• Congrats! Have fun with your reading - I'm sure you'll be a great addition to the mops corps! Nosebagbear (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Take the sacred mop and with it rinse the Wiki of its scum and villany!

Also, welcome to the Admin Menagerie! Nosebagbear (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey, as your nominator, just wanted to give you a shout-out. Now that it's safely over, I can say I was hoping, and it turned out to be, a whole lot less nerve-wracking than my last nomination; for everyone involved, I think this went well. Enjoy the new buttons, and if you ever have any questions or an oversight request you know how to find me. For now, I'll raise a glass! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, thank you for the message. Incase you wonder, I tried to thank your edit but misclicked hitting rollback instead. Apologies for that. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 03:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

On behalf of good Wikipedians everywhere, I present you with your level 1 mop. May it serve you long and well. Your gilded and diamond encrusted level 60 mop is on back order :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That level 60 mop sounds expensive. I wonder if it is worth the extra cost... Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Belated congratulations. Glad I had a chance to support your RFA. Good luck. Donner60 (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Hey I'm a bit late due to inactivity, but congrats. When you "retired" a while back, I was very distraught that your planned RfA would not be coming to fruition. I'm honestly very pleased that it still happened and that I had the opportunity to support! You're a good egg, and I'm glad to see you around. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  Swarm, thanks for the message. I had similar thoughts on it, but all turned out well. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

CU blocks

Unless the tools don't let you, I believe that yes, you can. There was CU confirmation in the SPI case. I'm not saying you should (since in this case they were declared indistinguishable AND left for behavioural evaluation), just that you could. Some of the checkusers like to leave a clear distinction between their checkuser role and their admin role so, having checked and reported, will not continue onward to carry out the blocking on the same case. There's currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#"Checked" status where some of the CUs are discussing (among other things) this point. I'm sure TonyBallioni will put us right if I'm wrong. Happy editing mopping & congrats on the RfA. Cabayi (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Cabayi, thanks for the note. Just the wording at Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser blocks, specifically the part Checkusers can block accounts based on technical (checkuser) evidence. They will make clear in the block log summary that they have blocked as a "checkuser action". These blocks must not be reversed by non-checkusers to me said that if a checkuser did not apply the block (even if there was evidence and no behavioural evaluation was needed) then isn't a checkuser action and so would be reversible by non-CUs. Furthermore, if it was reversible by non-CUs then it can't really be a check user block. I may be reading it wrong. Also thanks for the congratulations on the RfA. Seems ages ago now. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure the initial question, but only a CU should use any of the CU block templates. If a CU has confirmed and another admin blocks, it’s just a regular admin block. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

What TonyBallioni said. If it isn't made by a CU and isn't labeled as a CU block, then it's not a CU block. Regular block/unblock rules apply. Risker (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to have got it wrong, glad to have learnt something. Cabayi (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

My Sandbox / Wayne Johnson Article

I've updated it and its been edited.

Can you take a look and get it published. I'm at a loss he is running for the US Senate and his page was no different really than other candidates.

Best regards,

Bryant.Willis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryant.willis (talk • contribs) 14:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Kelly Loeffler not Johnson was selected to succeed Johnny Isakson. Candidates aren't notable under WP:NPOL and his service as a public servant doesn't appear to meet any of the standards of notability, WP:N, WP:GNG. If published, your article isn't likely to survive. Some subjects just aren't notable. Cabayi (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(also...) The undeclared candidates listed in 2020 United States Senate special election in Georgia with articles appear to have served in elected office previously and pass WP:NPOL for that reason, not for their potential candidacy next year. Cabayi (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Bryant.willis, to follow up what Cabayi has said, as far as I can tell, he has only been covered in multiple reliable and independent sources in regard to one event. This one event is his resignation and protest over the student loans in the US, which generated a number of newspaper articles. We have a policy on Wikipedia which relates to living people. A part of this policy says that if a person is only notable for one event, the person is unlikely to be in the news in the near future, and if the event was not significant then the person shouldn't have an article about them on Wikipedia. From what I can see he meets these points and so he isn't yet notable.

Furthermore, are you being paid for your edits? I know you have written Currently working on Dr. Arthur Wayne Johnson Senate Campaign on your talk page, but is this a role you are being paid to do? If you are, you need to explicitly say you are being paid, due to Wikipedia's terms of use on paid editing. I recommend if you are being paid that you clarify by saying that you are being paid (something like "Currently being paid to work by Dr. Arthur Wayne Johnson on his Senate Campaign). If you are not being paid, what you have written on your userpage is fine, but then please do reply saying that you are not being paid. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

welcome portal amintenance
... you were recipient no. 2094 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, thanks for the precious anniversary message. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Beethoven's birthday, as far as we know, so happily in the process of creating a little article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-51

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

• The Linter extension helps you find technical errors in articles. It did not show new changes last week. This was because of an API problem. It is now working again. [1]
• Special:Watchlist can show the wrong information again. It does not always show which edits are read and which are unread. This is because of a database problem. The developers are working on solving the problem. [2]

Changes later this week

• You can get email notifications. You can get them immediately, a summary every day or a summary once every week. If you choose a summary you can soon choose not to get notifications you have already marked as read on the wiki. [3]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 December. It will be on all wikis from 19 December (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 18 December at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The partial blocks feature is now stable. It will come to most wikis on 6 January. Your wiki can ask to wait. Contact NKohli (WMF) if you don't want it now. [4]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

00:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ghanada (1)

Greetings, Can you please approve this wiki page? I have made a lot of changes according to comment. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnuYog (talk • contribs) 19:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Dreamy_Jazz, Greetings, Can you please approve this wiki page? I have made a lot of changes according to comment. Thanks.

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Jessie Paege Deletion

in re: Jessie Paege (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

You should not have deleted Jessie Paege. The sources did show notability, she has over a million subscribers on YouTube. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

CheatCodes4ever, the PROD process works in that if you want to contest it, all you have to do is remove the PROD tag. Because you did not remove the PROD tag in the 7 days it could be deleted without delay. I saw that the article only used 4 sources and I evaulated them based on the general notability guideline. Two of them were references to a wiki (wikis cannot define notability due to them not being reliable and also due to WP:USERGENERATED). The others were to a spotify page and her YouTube channel which both do not define notability because they are not independent. Therefore, there was zero notability defining sources for WP:GNG. Furthermore, YouTubers are subject to the entertainers notability guideline (WP:ENT) which says that they must have a large fan base. YouTubers with higher subscriber numbers have had their pages on Wikipedia deleted (for example Jaiden Animations who had 4,400,000 subscribers at the time her page was deleted on Wikipedia). Subscriber count, in itself, does not define notability (and if it did, then the article would still be deleted, as she has less subscribers than another YouTuber who had their page deleted). Also it is likely that she does not have a large enough fan base to meet WP:ENT.

Furthermore, the way PROD works is that if you contest it, it can be undeleted. Therefore, I have restored the page. However, I may nominate the page for deletion through the articles for deletion process. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

To allow you to improve the article I have moved it to draft space. Please submit it for review when you think it is ready. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Dreamy Jazz
	Hi Dreamy Jazz, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year,    –Davey2010talk 00:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010 have a good christmas and new year too. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Team Brutality

Hi, Please move this draft to User:CptViraj/sandbox/Team Brutality without leaving a redirect. Thankyou and Merry Christmas! -- CptViraj (📧) 17:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

CptViraj, done. Forgot to uncheck create redirect, so just deleted the resulting redirect. Merry christmas too. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ghanada

@Dreamy Jazz: Greetings, Kindly have a look & approve this wiki page? Merry Christmas!

AnuYog Hello. I have declined the submission as several sections and paragraphs are unsourced. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 06:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Kindly re-review & approve. I have made all the changes. Thanks!

Hey, can you please re-review & approve the same? I have made all the changes according to your suggestions. Thanks! AnuYog (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

AnuYog, I have declined the submission as it reads promotionally. Please ensure that the draft is written from a neutral point of view. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Will you guide me please? It will be great help. Can you please tell me more specific? AnuYog (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

AnuYog, Wikipedia articles need to be written from a third-person, neutral view. This is because an article should state facts. For example, if sources describe the stories as great reflections on social change, you could write critics describe his stories as good reflections on social change. Basically, try to write it as if you only have read the sources. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz:, Can you have a look again? I just made that changes. Thanks! @Dreamy Jazz: Hey, can you please re-review? Thanks. AnuYog

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Lightburst Thanks. Hope you have a good holiday season too. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 05:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-52

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News

• Because of the holidays the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 6 January 2020.

Recent changes

• All mobile site users now have new features. Features include: tabs for page/discussion; an expanded user-menu; direct access to history pages. These features were initially part of the "advanced mode".

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week or next week.

Future changes

• You can use setlang in the URL to change the user interface language. This will no longer happen automatically. When you open the link you will be asked to confirm the language change. This will not happen if Javascript is not working in your browser. [5]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはDreamy Jazzたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Miraclepine Thanks for your message. I hope you have a good Christmas and new year. 2020 awaits (and so does Wikipedia ). Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Still Forced to Battle Incompetent "Editing"!

@ Dreamy Jazz,

I find this site very confusing to navigate and am trying to respond to today's email request for me to "talk" to you because you "mentioned me" somewhere. I've, unfortunately, found it necessary to periodically repost my two paragraphs to the Johann Bessler article because another "editor" seems determined to keep the topic incomplete, misleading, and out of date! I'm trying to counter that with the two paragraphs I've added. He seems to think that because I've done past research in the subject, that automatically disqualifies me from contributing to it when, in any other encyclopedia, that would be a necessary REQUIREMENT for making a contribution! Well, we'll see how long this nonsense will keep up. Right now, I feel that HIS ability to vandalize the Wikipedia articles should be terminated so he cannot do any future damage to them! I wonder if this situation persists with the other Wikipedia articles? I certainly hope not, but I'm starting to realize why most teachers and college professors will not allow their students to use this "free" encyclopedia as a source of information for papers that they might write. Well, at least the students can always use the references listed even if they cannot trust an article's "information".

Ken Behrendt December 25th, 2019 (Merry Christmas!)

I'm supposed to "sign" this with four "tildes"? Okay, here goes...

Ken Behrendt (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Ken Behrendt, hello and belated christmas wishes.

The main reason your additions are being reverted, is not because it references your book, instead it is because your book is self-published. Self-published sources are not necessarily reliable, as the self-published source may not have been checked by a independent reviewer before publishing. Therefore, our readers cannot be sure that information supported by an self-published source is correct. You can see more information on our policy on self-published sources.

The other main reason is that your addition can read like an advertisement for yourself and your work. For example, [t]he rediscovery required making about 2,000 computer wheel models can be seen as advertising for yourself. For more information you can see our conflict of interest guideline and our Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion policy.

What I strongly advise you to do is that you talk on Talk:Johann Bessler with myself, Eb.hoop2 and other editors. The talk page is a place where discussions relating to the article are best to happen. This allows other editors to see and also contribute their opinions and thoughts in the discussion. Commenting on the talk page allows you to explain why your addition is appropriate, and allows others to explain why they think the opposite. It allows consensus to be formed, so an agreement on what the best action is (whether to add or leave out your addition). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Let me add a few things to what Dreamy Jazz has said here about Ken Behrendt's edits to the article on Johann Bessler. First, one should bear in mind that the factual claim that Behrendt is making (that gravity-powered perpetual motion is possible) is about as non-mainstream as a claim can be, since it contradicts the laws of physics as they've been accepted by the scientific community for at least three centuries. It's on par with claiming that that the Earth is flat or that the Moon landings were faked. Since Wikipedia is not a forum for debate, but rather a vehicle for summarizing and communicating widely accepted information, there must be a strong presumption against claims of actual perpetual motion in the body of an article. And even if Behrendt wished simply to document the claims that he's made elsewhere, without offering them as proven facts, there would still remain two problems: that the claims are not sufficiently notable (having been made before only in self-published and relatively obscure media), and that he's not allowed to use Wikipedia to promote his own work.

Finally, I should mention that I think that Behrendt's personal behavior in this matter has fallen below the standards of the Wikipedia community. He hasn't merely refused to engage in discussion in the article's talk page, at first he repeatedly deleted my own comments on the matter, which amounts to sabotaging the established consensus-forming process. His subsequent engagement has amounted to little more than re-introducing the same material into the article after I've taken it out, and to ad hominem attacks in my user talk page, and now in yours. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Ken Behrendt's response to Dreamy Jazz: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.144.202 (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, "Dreamy Jazz", concerning my additional material for the "Johann Bessler" article.

Let me briefly respond to some of your comments:

You seem to be saying that my book on Johann Bessler is somehow worthless because it is "self-published". If one was to use that same logic for dismissing the validity of any published work, he'd also have to dismiss Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica... which was self-published by Newton with funds he borrowed from friends! To the contrary, it is considered one of the most important works in science. Unlike the VAST majority of the published works referenced in your "free" encyclopedia articles, my book is the end product of close to a half CENTURY of research. It should not to be taken lightly and casually dismissed by uninformed "editors".

After multiple deletions, I purposely removed the single reference to my book in one of the two paragraphs I added to the "Johann Bessler" article and predicted that, after doing so, the material would still be subject to censorship by, I suspect, solely "Eb.hoop2". Needless to say, I was right. I, unfortunately, had to endure reading some of his comments included in your message to me, so let me briefly respond to them:

He writes:

"First, one should bear in mind that the factual claim that Behrendt is making (that gravity-powered perpetual motion is possible) is about as non-mainstream as a claim can be, since it contradicts the laws of physics as they've been accepted by the scientific community for at least three centuries. It's on par with claiming that that the Earth is flat or that the Moon landings were faked."

It's really a shame that he does not even read the material he so zealously deletes! If he had, he would have realized that I specifically state that Bessler's wheels were NOT perpetual motion machines and did NOT create energy out of nothing. In fact, they did not violate any of the known laws of mechanics and physics back in the early 18th century or today! Also, at no time did I say that Bessler's wheels were "gravity powered"! More misinformation from Eb.hoop2! Gravity did enable the process by which the wheels could extract energy from the mass of their weights and levers, but gravity did not supply the energy his wheels could continuously output. One could actually use any sort of force field to achieve this effect. His wheels will work just as well aboard a rotating type space station using centrifugal force or inside of a powerful magnetic field if one uses iron weights instead of lead ones at the ends of their wooden levers.

He then continues with:

"Finally, I should mention that I think that Behrendt's personal behavior in this matter has fallen below the standards of the Wikipedia community. He hasn't merely refused to engage in discussion in the article's talk page, at first he repeatedly deleted my own comments on the matter, which amounts to sabotaging the established consensus-forming process."

Typical and shabby attempt at "Blame the Victim". HE started, without "discussion", by deleting some important material I provided in an effort to make the "Johann Bessler" article more accurate and complete and then later suggested that I was using Wikipedia to promote a book's sale! I was so offended by his actions and libelous suggestions that I felt no hesitation in deleting them and will again if he continues to make them. Apparently, he likes to ignore his own insulting suggestions toward others while putting the focus on their completely normal responses to HIS provocations! He says I "refused to engage discussion in the article's talk page". The reality is that, so far, I've probably written two of the longest responses on any of the "talk pages". Also, as I've mentioned previously, I am new to this editing process and find the layout of the portion of the Wikipedia site used for editing purposes confusing, overly complicated, and difficult to navigate. I'm actually lucky I found this page so I could respond to Dreamy Jazz!

In my opinion, Eb.hoop2 is NOT qualified to edit ANY of the material having to do with the mechanics of Johann Bessler's wheels. Maybe if he was to educate himself by actually reading my volume on Bessler and his wheels, then he would be so qualified. Based on my unfortunate experience with him, I also question his competence to edit ANY of the Wikipedia articles. After the repeated harassment I've been expose to, presumably due solely to his "editing" which I consider little more than incompetent censorship, if I had the authority I would permanently remove his ability to edit anything on Wikipedia!

Ken Behrendt December 27th, 2019

76.117.144.202 (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)