User talk:Naypta

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Help me to improve an article related India and its geography

Manimajra was renamed as sector 13 legally by UT government of Chandigarh in January 2020 and by February 2020 the new name was finally declared to be written everywhere on papers. Below are links to the decision:- 1). https://m.timesofindia.com/city/chandigarh/manimajra-to-be-renamed-sector-13-residents-elated/amp_articleshow/73114749.cms .

2). https://www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/chandigarh-s-manimajra-is-now-sector-13/story-ploFPCA4UGpDu9ksUxLtdL.html

Being a Indian resident, i would like to contribute to this new law which was passed by our government .

It is true that the proposal had been initially opposed in december 2019. In the initial proposal, names like Sector M or Sector 26 east were proposed. Here is the link for initial proposals made :-

3)https://m.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/manimajra-rwa-wants-number-not-m-after-sector/story-Q7ZPsdh5y120cEqlVAKuhP_amp.html

4)https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-chandigarh-to-finally-get-sector-13-after-54-years-of-formation-2813378

 (these articles were published in newspapers in 2019 which is old).

5)https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/chandigarh/mani-majra-to-be-sector-m-863728 (This link i provided over here was published in Tribune India in November 2019 )

But soon the final decision was made which overruled the previous proposals and finally the new name for manimajra was concluded as sector 13 by the beginning of 2020. The next link (6th Link) was also published in Tribune India with the final decision which was declared in February 2020 :-

6)https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/its-official-mani-majra-is-sector-13-of-chandigarh-39042

Please help me by putting your vote in the panel discussion on the talk page section of Sector 13.

Here is an example on how to put your vote ___________.

• Support
• Strong Support
• Agreed

Click on the edit tab and please copy any 1 vote you want to put from the above or you can put you vote by putting a * star symbol followed by 3 apostrophe marks ' ' ' and then writing your word for vote like support, agreed etc and finally closing it with again 3 apostrophe marks ' ' ' in the end.

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For boldly ignoring all rules in a contentious debate on AfD and closing it per WP:AVALANCHE even if it may not have fit the letter of the law. Putting yourself at risk of incivility/WP:POINTyness by editors angry at a contentious close, especially an early one, and especially as a non-admin, is worth recognizing and commending when it happens. Thank you! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Sentiment appreciated, thank you! I'm not sure I'd describe it as all that contentious - indeed, there seemed to be pretty broad agreement - and NACs for WP:SNOW closures aren't disallowed by any policy I'm aware of in the first instance, but nonetheless Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: It wasn't all that contentious among experienced editors, especially not after the Trump tweets, but it was still brave to risk the wrath of the WP:CANVASSers! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

---

You inspired me to do a non-admin closure of my own: 8 minutes and 46 seconds. My first Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 06:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

To Whom it may concern,

I recently edited the page "Hardcore Hip Hop" and my changes were reverted. I noticed that in your response to another author's realization of their changes being reverted, you said "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." This is the reason why I made the edit, as the article as presented was not neutral. Please provide evidence that the content of the article prior to my edits was neutral, otherwise you have no grounds for refusing my edit. Additionally, please produce proof of your expertise in music genres, otherwise you have no grounds for refuting my expertise.

Sincerely, Hip Hop Expert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5b80:1bc0:38b8:3d7f:d405:4afa (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@2600:1700:5b80:1bc0:38b8:3d7f:d405:4afa: Hello. You removed a significant amount of content from the article with no explanation as to why, changing its meaning substantially with no reliable sources. YouTube is not a reliable source, and for changes of the magnitude of the one you were trying to make, you should seek consensus on the talk page before making them again. Thank you! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@2600:1700:5b80:1bc0:38b8:3d7f:d405:4afa: Consider that you, nor anyone else that would engage with me on the "talk page," is exposed enough socially to understand such matters. Additionally, consider yourself a protector of petrified opinion. | 11:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5b80:1bc0:38b8:3d7f:d405:4afa (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@2600:1700:5b80:1bc0:38b8:3d7f:d405:4afa: You're entitled to be of that opinion, although I'd appreciate a bit more civility in the way you express it. If you have any further questions pertinent to editing Wikipedia in a way that's compliant with our policies, I'm happy to help you out! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Mau Mau

Hi Naypta. What was wrong with my edit? I thought it made perfect sense. --Colony! Colony! Colony! (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Colony! Colony! Colony!: Hello, I left a message on your talk page explaining what was wrong. Your edits were not written from a neutral point of view, the standard we adhere to on Wikipedia. Thank you, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Biography

Sir - Concerning BILL OSTER - Was wondering why you rejected all which was properly / correctly / accurately entered Friday which was all 100 % true yet you now show exactly same but have not allowed the corrections as entered, such as name of grandson with name of ' ted ' which s/b ' Ted ' - ??? - Will not correct anything on this entry ever again although you all need to smarten up in this regard - Therefore, an explanation would be appreciated unless you choose to do as most others have when questioned and just disappear - By the way, just so you are aware as so many of you Wikipedia so-called ' editors ' appear to know nothing about baseball or sorts in general, I personally knew this gentleman and from the last entry the other day with corrections to HECTOR TORRES, as well, who played with the Toronto Blue Jays when I was involved with that team - You people need to be a little smarter in these things as some people do know a little more than most of you appear to - Thank you very much - 69.158.86.174 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@69.158.86.174: Hello, myself and other users have explained to you what was wrong on your talk page. Wikipedia requires all information to have a reliable source attached, especially when it's about a living or recently deceased person. Claiming that someone has died without a source asserting it to be true isn't allowed. If you can find a reliable source to assert that claim, that's fine, you can readd your edit with that source cited. You may personally know him, but I'm afraid your personal experience isn't a sufficiently encyclopedic or verifiable reference. Thanks, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

stop fiddling

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE 27.32.179.175 (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Every time I edit, you undo it! Most frustrating, please stop! :(

@27.32.179.175: Hello, additions to Wikipedia are required to be verifiable in reliable sources. Your additions looked to me like promotion without a reliable source, so I removed them. If there is coverage supporting your edits in independent, reliable sources, please cite these sources in your edits. Thank you! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

BILL OSTER - CONTINUED -

Sir - As it stands your very poor response is way beyond totally unacceptable - You cannot supply a reference / source if there is nothing known to that point other than a person has died, has been acknowledged to have died, so then the information is entered with the hope some reference / source will then follow shortly afterward or within a number of days, which it usually has when others chime in but the people who did entered no reference either ( ??? ) - You ' editing ' people have really screwed up Wikipedia in more recent years since 2005 as back when it all started things could be entered very smoothly / easily without jumping through all of these waste of time and beyond unnecessary hoops - For the most part people do not know where to go for a reference / source in most instances yet have something which they feel needs to be entered / should be entered and ASAP - However, once again you unknowing types have made it much too tough to accomplish even the basic minimal - Lastly, how can you, being in England, even know anything about baseball at all ( ??? ), as most of you cannot even report cricket properly, having played for Canada Juniors over 50 years ago and faced some of the top cricket players of the 1960s at that time, to be able to tell people what to say / not say ( ??? ) - Please do think about some of this then try to smarten up just a little as there are people out here who know a great deal more on topics you all do not and never will - As you might expect at this point, Mr. Oster's family are not at all pleased !!! - Lastly, there is no need for any of you ' editors ' to ever enter any kind of waste of time responses as it will not be appreciated at this point. Thank You.69.158.86.174 (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. Please consult Wikipedia's policy on civility. If you're willing to be civil and to have a discussion, I'm happy to help you; otherwise, I'm not. Thank you. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Another satisfied customer. EEng 11:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Personally, I pride myself on being an "unknowing type ( ??? )" Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Did anything happen with the captions

Hi, I noticed that Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_180#Proposal:_Allow_wikilinks_and_other_wikimarkup_from_tooltip_text_to_be_displayed_on_WP_image_pages has been archived. Did anyone do anything to fix the visual editor captions? If not, should I write a new proposal?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: Hey! I'm not aware that any decision was taken from that thread, no. It might be a good idea to raise it again if it's still something you're interested in :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 07:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

a sack of potatos for you!

One potato from every person YapperBot gave a dozen messages! :) —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 08:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yapperbot is frisky this morning

I've had eight requests for comment already this morning - is Yapperbot feeling alright? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Girth Summit: see this ANI thread for the mechanics. Incidentally, you're "only" lined up for 20 alerts a month, so it might soon be over for you 😉 ——Serial ^# 09:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I posted this Wikipedia_talk:Feedback_request_service#Bot_enabled_--_concerns before seeing the this ANI thread. I will check that out. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: thanks for the link - got it, one off thing, no big deal from my perspective. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit and Serial Number 54129:. FYI:

Further information: User_talk:Yapperbot § Frequency_functionality_continued

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Frequency functionality continued

Moved from WP:ANI § Please stop Yapperbot NOW

discussion moved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Discussion continued from WP:ANI (and other locations as noted at User_talk:Yapperbot#Current_discussions). Mathglot (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC) @Mathglot: Thanks for opening up this continued discussion. Can you commit to looking into an adjustment to the code so that a cold start after some time offline won't repeat this? I wrote my answer to whether or not bot should be turned off during an edit-conflict. I'm willing to commit to looking at the code, but I expect it will take a few days before I have any sense of how it works, given my experience with programming/coding does not include wiki-bot coding. I can't promise I will have the time and patience to sufficiently understand it to verify that this wouldn't happen again, but I will give it a shot. I promise that within the week I will at least get started and will put in at least an hour to looking at it and possibly asking the coder or other bot-coders key questions about how it or certain bot-commands work. If there is no documentation, I might start (or add to) it. That's it for this subject for tonight for me... --David Tornheim (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC) @David Tornheim and Mathglot: I won't comment on where this discussion should be - as mentioned previously, I'm more than happy to go wherever it takes me! This is as far as I can tell the first time that the bot being "turned off" during an edit conflict has been mentioned. What do you envisage that would do? Also, doesn't that have the potential to create quite serious issues with frequently-used talk pages? (It may also not be possible in the current implementation, as Yapperbot is coded deliberately to use MediaWiki's "New section" functionality to avoid ever having edit conflicts.) The idea of rate limiting is clearly one that's possible, though. In theory, this issue shouldn't ever reoccur anyway, but in the event that it did, it might be good to have rate limits involved. I already have edit limiting code from the bot trial, which is hooked into the FRS bot, so changing that to have a limit on the number of messages sent to a single user per run (the bot currently runs on Toolforge every hour) would definitely be possible if people think that's a good idea. One alternative would be simply to add another parameter to {{Frs user}} that allows users to customise a daily limit - perhaps with a default of 3, then allowing users to set any number there, or 0 for no limit. Whatever changes are made, I want to make sure that everyone is happy with them - so please let me know your thoughts! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC) On further reflection, I think there are two good options going forward (although there may well be other ones that I've not considered - I welcome additional suggestions!): Add a per-week limit to {{Frs user}}. I previously said per day limit, but in the vast majority of cases (i.e. pretty much any apart from this edge case of edge cases) that wouldn't be helpful. A week limit would accomplish much the same thing, just with far more utility in normal times, too. Build the code of the bot to ship multiple notifications to a user in one template. This has advantages and disadvantages: whilst it'd mean less talk page spam in this edge case, it would also mean that the notification might potentially be less clear, as the heading would have to be just "feedback requested" rather than a category (as they might contain multiple categories). It'd also mean the bot would be less easy to debug if there were issues to come up: at the moment, because each message is a product of a single RfC, it's easy to track back issues if they occur and fix them, which would be more problematic without that clear connection. Let me know your thoughts Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Hiya - Allie from IRC here. I would advise putting a hard limit on how many times Yapperbot can write to a specific user's talkpage in a one-hour period, and I would suggest that limit is once - all the FRS notifications for a day should really be delivered in a single edit anyway. I would also suggest implementing a proper rate-limit which takes the per-month limit and uses that to calculate a "cooling-off" period between notifications to a user. For instance, I think I'm set at 30 notifications per month, so a 24 hour cooling-off period would be appropriate, but someone who is set at one notification per month should recieve a notification (on average) every 30 days, instead of just on the first of each calendar month. I'm a bit concerned you're referring to this as an 'edge case' - in my opinion, scheduling is core bot functionality. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 12:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC) @Alfie: Hi Allie. This is an edge case, because it is by no means normal for there to be this many "new" RfCs to process. If you take a look at the history of the pages Legobot transcludes RfCs onto - for instance, take the Biographies category - you can see that, on a daily basis, there's normally one, maybe two, RfCs per category. Ninety-nine to process at once is, in every sense of the word, a rarity. That being said, of course, it being a rarity and an edge case does not mean that it's not something that would be useful to address. A cooling-off period, as you refer to it, is of course possible to implement, but I'm not sure it's really all that necessary - if you look at the history of the way that Legobot previously did this, this was never an issue, and I suspect had I just not sent any notifications of the ongoing RfCs and only started sending messages regarding new ones, it wouldn't have ever come up as an issue either. Bundling FRS notifications in a run is definitely possible, although there's nothing to guarantee that a further run that same day wouldn't pick up a new RfC or GA nom, which would then send another message. Once again, the thing to bear in mind here is that the vast majority of the time, each run will consist of one RfC, maybe two at a push - nowhere near the number experienced this morning. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC) PS: As to documentation, the specific bot code doesn't have explicit documentation, because it's not a library, but all the relevant bits of code are commented. Code for ybtools, which is the shared library used across all of the bot's tasks, is commented in standard Godoc style as it is a library, so its full documentation is available here. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC) P.S. shouldn't this discussion be at Wikipedia_talk:Feedback_request_service or User_talk:Yapperbot? --David Tornheim (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC) If you just bundled all the invites into a single section (possibly by detecting whether the last section on a user's talkpage is an existing recent notification, and adding a new notification to it) I think people would be 90% less annoyed. But people are making much too big a deal of this, if indeed it's just a startup phenomenon. EEng 13:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC) @EEng: That's one of the options I've mentioned above, yeah. I disagree that people are making too big a deal of it, though; it's important. Being a botop means being in a position of trust, by the very nature of running a bot, and I want people to feel that they can put that trust in me. If people feel I've broken that trust, that's a huge issue, so it is important to have these discussions - at least from my perspective. As I said at the ANI thread, bots are here to serve the community, not the other way around, and I want to make sure that mine works the way it's supposed to. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC) I can send you a whip with which to flagellate yourself. EEng 13:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC) I very much appreciate your saying that in that tone. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Yapperbot § Frequency functionality continued

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Notices for expired discussions

Aside from the duplicates thing you revert, the bot is also leaving FRS input/participation requests for discussion that are long-since closed, e.g. [1]. This is the only one I've seen, but it's 12 days past the date when it should have gone out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: That's for a brand new GA nomination, not for the DYK. There are no FRS notifications for DYKs, so that's working as intended. Sorry for the duplicate issue, though - debugging that at the moment, the bot is paused until it's fixed Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Guess I need coffee and better glasses!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: FYI:

Further information: User_talk:Yapperbot § Frequency_functionality_continued

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yapperbot

Is the bot working off a backlog because it is taking over the duties of an earlier bot who died in action or was captured? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: It was - although the previous bot didn't so much die as was incapacitated for the purposes of this task The first run finished this morning, so now it should respond on time with new RfCs and GA noms. Legobot used to run the FRS, but it hadn't been sending notifications for many months, and its botop hadn't been responding to messages about it, so I stepped in to run it instead. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: FYI:

Further information: User_talk:Yapperbot § Frequency_functionality_continued

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I heard you had a busy morning. AdamF in MO (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Heh, thank you Adamfinmo! Busy is one word for it... all sorted now thankfully Plenty of learning on my part, which is always positive! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yapperbot edit summary when posting RfCs on talk pages

Good morning, may I put a suggestion over to you, maybe to refine the length of the bot's edit summary? IMO its a bit too long. On many older PCs with a lower resolution the length of the summary can fill up two or three lines of text. Thanks. Nightfury 07:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nightfury: Hi, thanks for the feedback! I can definitely look into shortening it - would something like FRS notification for "Category Name", which you opted into. You can unsubscribe at WP:FRS be better? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. Thanks Nightfury 09:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nightfury:  Done - updated to Feedback Request Service notification on a "Category Name" request type (n/n this month). You can unsubscribe at WP:FRS., which would result in (for example) Feedback Request Service notification on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination (4/5 this month). You can unsubscribe at WP:FRS.. Shorter, and also gives greater clarity on limits consumed. Hope that's helpful! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yapperbot duplication

Thanx for starting up a new FeedbackRequestService bot. I have a bug/improvement to report: I received the same RFC three times in a row.[2] Not a big deal, but I suggest checking to prevent duplicates. I also suggest running the "All RFCs" group last so it can't deplete a list for a category-specific selection later. Alsee (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alsee: Hey, thanks for the report! This is actually working as intended. It's not the same RfC, there are just three RfCs on that page Sorry for the trouble! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Changing definition of Prejudice

I sincerely feel that we need to make a distinction between prejudice and racism in our society. A lot of things have happened over the past few week that have directed my attention to how we view race in society. People like me who are of Asian descent; we normally experience prejudice. Sometimes a few people will say a few nasty things to us, but overall we are living in a somewhat equal society. I do not think this is the case for black people in the United States,and we have to acknowledge this in how we refer ot racism. I cannot edit the racism page, but I can edit the prejudice page.I now have a source, to back up my claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgreene.gatech (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dgreene.gatech: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. As I have mentioned on your talk page, it is important that all additions and changes to the encyclopedia are accompanied with reliable sources that support the claims being made. If you have appropriate sources supporting the claim you are making, you can reinstate it; however, it may not be appropriate for the lead of the article, which should be a concise summary of the entire topic. It may fit better in another section. If you would like, you can discuss this with more experienced editors to the article on the article's talk page. Thank you! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Naypta,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Naypta

Thank you for creating Eastern Army (Spain).

User:Eddie891, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for this article! Based upon the english book I checked, you might want to add a mention of this page to People's Army of Catalonia as it seems that the PAC was somewhat merged into this army...

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Eddie891}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Good shout, cheers! Will do Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Naypta, your important, volunteer work, of almost single-handedly fixing a months-long broken FRS is much appreciated by the Community. All the best, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 22:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, History DMZ, I greatly appreciate it! If I recall correctly, you were one of the few users who were most affected by the slight deluge of invitations when the new bot did its first run - sorry about that Hopefully you and the rest of the community find it useful going forward! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries Naypta. And I'll share a bit of humor, when I saw 35 new messages I was debating with myself whether this was Sinebot's (auto-sign) or Sigmabot's (auto-archive) doing, but the honors went to Yapperbot of course lol. Keep up the good work :) History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 23:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)