| Revision as of 01:34, 15 October 2004 editBenc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,553 edits →Problem with an administrator← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:53, 15 December 2023 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators59,217 edits Notification: listing of Template:R from category navigation at WP:Templates for discussion.Tag: Twinkle | ||
| (79 intermediate revisions by 57 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:Benc/News}} | |||
| {| align="right" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="border:solid silver 1px;background:#f9f9f9;margin-left:8px;" | {| align="right" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="border:solid silver 1px;background:#f9f9f9;margin-left:8px;" | ||
| | Older discussions are <br> located in the ''']'''. | | Older discussions are <br /> located in the ''']'''. | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |style="text-align:right"|—] | |style="text-align:right"|—] | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == duplicate categories == | |||
| ==] has been nominated for speedy rename== | |||
| Hi Benc, since you just moved the "category side effect" warning, could you also modify it to explain that some of the categories are listed more than once (see ])? (I'm relatively new and don't want to mess with such a central page without knowing exactly what I'm talking about.) Thanks. ] 21:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Done; see ]. Also, I wouldn't be worried about messing with a central page if I were you. Your intentions are clearly for the best; if you make a mistake along the way, someone will surely see it and fix it. :-) Thanks for pointing out the fact that it needed additional clarification, by the way. ]] 22:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, and thanks for the encouragement. ] 22:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has been nominated for speedy rename. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 18:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==To-do list for CoTW== | |||
| I'm wondering why you are using the to-do list for previous Collaboration of the Week articles (e.g. for ]). The task you propose "Improve this article to featured-standard" is so vague that it can be put on any article. Wouldn't it be better to be more specific, or to not use the to-do list at all ? What do you expect from the readers of that to-do list ? (I believe that there are already enough ways to promote the CoTW collaboration mechanism, if that's your purpose; I also believe that this presumed misuse of the to-do lists reduces their general attraction by generating bad will) What do you think ? ] 21:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == A beer for you! == | |||
| :Your point is well-taken; this ''is'' somewhat of a misuse of the to-do list mechanism. I wasn't necessarily trying to advertise COTW, but it definitely appears that way. More than anything else, the "Improve this article..." was meant to be a temporary placeholder, to be replaced with actionable items. Actionable to-do items have been added to a number of COTW graduates (see ]), but the "Improve this article..." message hasn't been removed in those cases, which it probably should. | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| :I can start going through and peer reviewing the previous COTW articles needing actionable to-do items, though you (and anybody else interested) are certainly welcome to collaborate on this. Thank you very much for pointing this out to me. ]] 22:01, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Welcome back. Looks like it's been a while! ''']'''×''']''' 09:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thumb twiddling== | |||
| |} | |||
| Thanks for the improvements to the article, and for your good words. ] 14:20, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC) | |||
| == The move to RfC == | |||
| The reason that I posted the question to the village pump was that there wasn't an edit dispute going on, which is what ] is for. ] (])]] 05:45, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your bookmark table== | |||
| Hi there, | |||
| I stumbled upon the bookmark table on your user page and I like how you managed to put it all in a clear outlined table. I've currently linked to yours on my own user page. Would you mind me making a copy for my own use? :) ]|<sup>]</sup>]] 08:43, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| BTW, how did you make the box around | |||
| :"Older discussions are | |||
| located in the archive. | |||
| —Benc" | |||
| on top of this page? ]|<sup>]</sup>]] 08:58, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| **Thanks for the replies to both questions on my talk page. ]|<sup>]</sup>]] 07:09, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == You're a sysop! == | |||
| I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an ]. Congratulations!. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the ] before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the ]. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new ] helpful. Cheers! -- ] | ] 00:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you — I'll do my best. :-) ]] 17:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Congratulations, Ben! ] (])]] 18:28, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| === An open thank-you === | |||
| As of 27 September 2004, I am an ] on the English Misplaced Pages. This message is for everyone who voted on ] (including the neutrals). I didn't want to spam everyone's talk pages, so I'm doing it here instead: | |||
| I'd like to send out a big thank you to everyone for their kind words and the support for making me a sysop. I'll do my very best to use these powers sparingly and appropriately. Thank you for your trust — I will be sure to "guard the keys to the WikiJanitor mop closet." :-) ]] 17:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hey! I've created this new notice board specifically for articles related to people from the U.S. South. If you are interested in contributing, leave a message on the page and add articles you feel need to be reviewed, contributed to, or started. ] 21:13, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| The Southern Collaboration of the Week board is now up. Please vote or nominate other articles. The first voting ends on October 3. ] 14:19, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ===Category=== | |||
| No objections. However, I am getting ready to go clubbing. :-D So...can you do it for me? ] 23:24, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks! == | |||
| * Benc - many thanks for supporting my adminship, and congratulations on your own! ] | ] 04:55, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * And also a thank you from me, for directing me to Meta-wiki (Wiki addict article), I'll take a look at is! regards, --] 08:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks! + better GFDL -> GPL linking == | |||
| Hi benc, thanks for helping on ]. If you're interested in something else maths related in wikipedia (and i thought i wrote a long rant on this, but i'm not quite sure where...), IMHO it's rather self-defeating to have GFDL encyclopedia articles writing about mathematics (or science), containing text and formulae, ''without at the same time strongly favouring'' external links to GPL or GPL compatible '''software'''. Of course, the software doesn't always (yet) exist, but often it does, and IMHO it would be good idea to make people writing or correcting articles feel that they should search for some free software equivalent. In fact, surely just about any article could be associated with some sort of free software which does something which enables the reader/user to do more with that idea, to test it, integrate it with other info, etc etc. | |||
| As someone with a job in science, i can say that most practising astronomers use some mix between free software, not-quite-free software and outright-commercial-closed software, and are generally not quite aware of the diffferences between free and non-quite-free software. The feeling is often "the ends justify the means". If wikipedia only gives people the ''end results'' of knowledge without giving them the power to test that knowledge themselves, then we will only have a small-r revolution in knowledge distribution, not a real big-R Revolution which will help save the planet. :) | |||
| My feeling is that something could be added to the basic template for writing/editing articles to encourage links to free (as in speech) software. However, i thought that rather than trying to ''campaign'' for this (i'm sure that any change to the basic editing form would be very strongly debated :), it makes more sense simply to do it for the subjects where i think i can contribute - people are more likely to take this seriously if i do some work myself. So for ], i've submitted an article to a scientific journal, it's freely available as a preprint (external link on eigenplane) (but not GFDL - i need to get ''brownie points'' for my dayjob), and the GPL software is downloadable. If other people like the idea, then maybe it will spread. | |||
| As a short term step towards this, if anyone has any ideas for a better free software template, please see: | |||
| *] and ] for how it works | |||
| *] | |||
| These comments, are, of course :), GFDL, so feel free to cut/paste/modify/extend/debug/reuse on a more appropriate page of the wikipedia than your talkpage. :) ] 13:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == suggestion == | |||
| I read ], and I think you have really good ideas. In fact, I think you should add another request: that hovering on a link would open a little information box, just as happens when you put your mouse on an image. This little information box should show the beggining of the article that is being linked, or a little summary. | |||
| This will help those who are reading an article but are not familiar with a all the concepts (in physics, for instance). But this should be optional, since it might annoy some users. | |||
| == Re: BJAODN comment == | |||
| But in the future, let's wait until it's actually deleted, okay? -- | |||
| *How am I supposed to copy the deleted article's content <b>after</b> it has been deleted? After all, I am not the only person to contribute to BJAODN early - there is even one article there which was in fact never deleted. BJAODN is for fun, not for disputes about technicalities. -- ] 10:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| **Yes, but also: BJAODN is for fun, '''not for hurting anybody's feelings'''. I was not disputing technicalities — I was just being cautious about this borderline case. How would you feel if a good-faith contribution of yours got sent to BJAODN, perhaps with a snarky comment like ''this is why you shouldn't edit Misplaced Pages on acid''? I was unsure if the article you're referring to was a "good faith" effort, hence the suggested delay. Whenever we're laughing at other people's contributions — no matter how silly they are — it's important to keep ] in mind.<p>Anyway, about my comment. I didn't mean to say that we should ''always'' wait until deletion. Rule of thumb: whenever there are a fair number of "keep" votes on VfD or wherever, that's a good sign that some people's feelings might get hurt, and the article should only be moved to BJAODN upon deletion, if at all. In this case, the keep votes were sockpuppets, which is why I reverted myself. ]] 21:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ***Fine with me. -- ] 11:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Images == | |||
| Take a look at the | |||
| ], subsection | |||
| "Risk of inappropriate images appearing". Thoughts? -- ] 04:07, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfD deletions== | |||
| When you deleted the entry for ], you also deleted the material about ], which had not been dealt with yet. Please be more careful, and only delete entries which really are completely done with. ] 14:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Good catch; thank you. I was closing out old RFD discussions when I saw the first sentence of your response, which was "Done." I didn't read the rest of the comment... my mistake. I'll be sure to read it next time. Sorry about that, ]] 14:11, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Wow, that was fast! Thanks! (No problem, BTW.) | |||
| One other thing, looking down the list of stuff you worked on: I was wondering if maybe the list of saved precedents shouldn't be on a page called /Precedents (following the example of VfD), rather than /Archive - in part to follow the example, and also since it's not really a comprehensive archive. | |||
| I do really like the way you put the actual debates on a separate page, as opposed to inline, the way VfD/Precendents does it - it makes for a much easier to read page. You might want to suggest on ] that we do the same thing there - the VfD/Precedents page is really long, and hard to use. ] 15:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| : Hunh. It turns out there is a talk page for the VfD/Precedents subpage, at ]. So I guess my suggestion immediately above ought to be directed there instead. ] 00:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == You reverted your OWN edits?? == | |||
| How could you revert your OWN edits?? Generally, edits of this kind usually mismatch Z and X in "reverted edits by X to last version by Y", but they match in this section. ] 16:10, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm entitled to change my mind. Who isn't? :-) ]] 17:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Or perhaps I have an evil twin? :-P ]] 17:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == About meta == | |||
| I clicked Recent Changes and looked for an admin. You were the first one I saw, so you get this question. :-) Would you check ] and see if you can make heads or tails of it. I've never worked with templates here. Should this be on meta or is it about something else entirely? Thank you. ] | ] 02:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *Muuuuch better. Thank you. ] | ] 03:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for Help == | |||
| First of all, thank you for the compliments you posted re: my article. | |||
| <BR>Secondly: since you've posted in the ] discussion now, I'm hoping you can help myself and Stbalbach finally bring this interminable bicker-session to a close. It was started and sustained by AlexR - who seems to have a consistent track record of causing the same problems he's now causing in the above discussion. Here's a brief background: | |||
| <BR>When I attempted to clean up some of the historical information for the "Cross-Dresser" article - specifically with regard to a personage whom I specialize in as a historian - he set off an enormous fight over the changes which I and now also Stbalbach have agreed upon. To give some idea of his argument style, I'll use one subtopic as an example: despite my attempts to point out that many eyewitnesses related quotes from Joan of Arc herself explaining that she wore "male clothing" out of necessity, he keeps claiming that I've instead been citing subjective "interpretations" rather than direct quotes, therefore he thinks we should argue over the ability of others to make such "interpretations". When I try to point out (again) that these are quotes from Joan herself, he ironically accuses me of ignoring his arguments rather than vice-versa. This appears to be his pattern, judging from a remarkably similar ping-pong match he's managed to sustain in ]. Glancing over that discussion, it looks like numerous people have asked that an obscure word should be properly defined in the article for the benefit of readers, but he has been resisting this common-sense change and repeatedly undoing every edit which the others make - all while accusing the others of being the unreasonable party rather than himself. | |||
| <BR>I would ask that, if possible, you could please block him from further interference, at least in the Cross-Dresser discussion and perhaps others if such is merited. It is literally impossible to make improvements when one stubborn editor engages in this type of persistent behavior, and it would seem to be rather senseless to argue with him when he appears to deliberately make irrelevant comments just to keep the debate going indefinitely. | |||
| <BR>Many thanks for your time and consideration. I joined Misplaced Pages with the intent of contributing some historical material, but thus far it has been a rather frustrating process. | |||
| <BR>- ] (Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive ) 00:56, 11 Oct 2004 | |||
| :I will gladly do whatever I can to help. I'm very sorry that you have encountered such a difficult opposition to your edits so early on. Thank you for your patience and willingness to discuss in search of consensus. Those are key virtues for any Wikipedian, especially in cases where others forget the ]. | |||
| :Anyway, no matter how much I would like to, I can not and will not block anyone simply for being stubborn and rude. It's against the ]. Unfortunately, this allows POV warriors to exist. That's why we have ] and ] in place. In the worst cases, rude, argumentative editors dig themselves into a hole, with most of the community against them, and eventually get banned by the ]. It's slow, but in the interests of maintaining a fair, open-minded community, we ''have'' to do it this way, however slow and painful it may be. | |||
| :I'm sure you've seen this by now, but I've just finished a major edit at ] to help settle the Joan of Arc issue. I hope this will help; if there's anything that didn't help please let me know on ]. ]] 07:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::As expected, AlexR has now gone in and completely changed your edits to that page, and has promised (in another place) to keep up an endless "edit war". This is a bit like dealing with an adolescent. | |||
| ::I had joined Misplaced Pages after someone posted a note to an academic list making the point, in essence, that historians really should edit Misplaced Pages articles for the sake of insuring accuracy. I'm finding out why more of them do not. | |||
| ::Would you at least revert the article back to the changes that you had made, and then protect the article from additional tampering? Otherwise this process will truly never end. - ] (Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive ) 15:12, 11 Oct 2004 | |||
| == Problem with an administrator == | |||
| What are the procedures for abitrating NPOV disputes? A Misplaced Pages administrator, ] insists on inserting his virulently Zionist POV into many Middle East-related pages and he ignores Talk page discussions questioning his actions. For instance, he deletes references to Occupied Territories, insisting that they are "disputed territories" a typical ruse of Zionist propaganda. He insists that Hamas is a terrorist organization and refuses to recognize that the label terrorist reflects his POV and is not universally shared. He constantly reverts edits by users he disagrees with (not just me) and insists that his view is the only acceptable view. He does not seek consensus, he does not discuss issues honestly, he just insists that he is right and everyone else must conform to his view. His behavior borders on vandalism and it discourages objective Wikipedians who are working sincerely to build pages with a NPOV. Any suggestions on dealing with this problem? Thanks! ] 00:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :How about working with me towards NPOV? That might work. Accurate summaries of my edits (unlike the fantasy listed above) would help too. Also, avoiding ] comments in Talk: pages would be a definite plus. ] 00:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| You can see that Jayjg is stalking my edits on multiple pages, even to your Talk page. He redirected ] without even bothering to discuss it on the Talk page. He has systematically tried to revert many of my edits and new page creations of the past 24 hours for purely political purposes. Is this the way Misplaced Pages administrators are suppose to behave? ] 01:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Please, as requested above, try to give accurate summaries of my activities. I did not redirect ], I listed it for deletion, which requires no Talk: discussion. And I'm not sure what "He has systematically tried to revert many of new page creations of the past 24 hours" means, I haven't reverted any of your new page creations in the past 24 hours, I've just listed one specific page for deletion. Also, if you have issues with me, the preferred method of dealing with them is to first discuss them with me, on my Talk: page. Why don't you take the discussion there? ] 02:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Alberuni, as long as Jayjg does not abuse his administrator-specific powers (i.e., deletion and blocking) at any time, the issue of him being an admin is irrelevant in the context of your unfortunate dispute with him. First and foremost, admins are Wikipedians. If Jayjg had abused his privileges, I would be among the first calling for investigation and arbitration. Admins should (and do for the most part, I believe) represent the friendliest, most hardworking and helpful face of Misplaced Pages. I have seen zero evidence of Jayjg abusing his admin status in this dispute. | |||
| About his "stalking" your edits: you're allowed to look at Jayjg's, mine, or any other user's contributions and follow up on them if you believe they are misrepresenting you. Jayjg has that right, too. I'm not saying you misrepresented him or vice versa; I am not yet familiar with the dispute. As long as Jayjg doesn't misrepresent you by editing your comments in bad faith, he's well within his rights to respond wherever and however he pleases within the bounds of ] and ], as are you. | |||
| That being said, your concerns are valid. Every Wikipedian has a right to speak his mind, so long as he keeps ] in mind at all times. I see that a request for comment about general user conduct regarding yourself at ]. I also see that you have responded there. Keep in mind that if you feel Jayjg's conduct is inappropriate, you are free to open an RFC on him, though it must be seconded by another user within 48 hours of the listing in order to be considered. I would also recommend involving a ] and/or an advocate from the ] (AMA). | |||
| In short, your options at this point include: | |||
| *Try to work it out with Jayjg on your own, without any ], keeping ] in mind at all times | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| Please note that I am currently neither a mediator nor a members' advocate. I may apply to be a mediator in the future, but my life is currently too busy, job-wise. Anyway, I hope all this helps in resolving your difficulties with Jayjg. I cannot emphasize enough that ] are single most harmful factor affecting the Misplaced Pages. Please avoid them like the plague. ]] 01:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == RfA == | |||
| Now I've got some homework to do. Thank you for your supportive RfA vote and consideration. ] 14:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == My nomination for adminship == | |||
| == ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message == | |||
| Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I will do my best to serve Misplaced Pages. --] 00:11, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| <table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"> | |||
| == Matthew Richardson VfD == | |||
| <tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| Are you sure putting him on the same sub-page with her is valuable? I am removing the redundant copy of her debate, but i suspect something like an system-resolved edit-conf between the two sections may have gotten her doubled. --]] 00:29, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC) | |||
| :It's neither good nor bad to have two related VfD discussions on a single page. I did so because it was quicker and easier for me when I listed the article. If someone messes it up by doubling it, it will be fixed by excellent WikiJanitors like yourself (and I mean this as a strong compliment!) I've fixed doubling-resulting-from-edit-conflicts before, including on the main VfD page. It happens anywhere and everywhere. (Though let me tell you, I wasted quite a bit of bandwidth figuring the VfD doubling out.) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :Anyway, if you really want to split the VfD listing to give ] its own page, feel free to do so. It's harmless either way, but thanks for your concern. ]] 00:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| </td></tr> | |||
| </table> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1056562944 --> | |||
| == Nomination for merger of ] == | |||
| ]] has been ] with ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ] on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfmnotice--> <b style="font-family:Courier New;">]]</b><sup>]</sup> 14:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:53, 15 December 2023
| Older discussions are located in the archive. |
| —Benc |
Category:English dialects has been nominated for speedy rename
Category:English dialects has been nominated for speedy rename. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
Welcome back. Looks like it's been a while! jp×g 09:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC) |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Nomination for merger of Template:R from category navigation
Template:R from category navigation has been nominated for merging with Template:Category redirect. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster 14:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)