Misplaced Pages

User talk:Qwyrxian: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:07, 10 July 2012 editShearonink (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,354 edits →If there is ever: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:21, 2 April 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 56) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Not around|||January 2014}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K |maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 32 |counter = 56
|minthreadsleft = 3 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{TOC left}} {{TOC left}}
{{User: Qwyrxian/Archive box}}
<div style="float:right">
{{archives|title=] ]}}
<inputbox>
bgcolor=
type=fulltext
prefix=User talk:Qwyrxian
break=yes
width=20%
searchbuttonlabel=Search archives
</inputbox>
</div>
{{clear}} {{clear}}


== The alesha show ==


== WWE Personnel ==
if you check the BPI website you will see that it is only certifed GOLD NOT PLATINUM SEE FOR YOURSELF!!!


Hi, As a protecting user of the article ], I would like to inform you that try to notify users to follow wwe.com to keep that article accurate.
== ], ] and others ==


1) if a person is in RAW then he should be under RAW list and Vice Versa.
Hello. Fairly long time.
2) if a person either got released, retired, or serving as a free agent or inactive for any reason, if they listed under current roster on website but not under brands, then he should'be listed under unassigned brands, and if he showed under brand on website then that should happen same as website do as listing them under their desired brands. if WWE.com shows John cena under raw then list him under RAW as same. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request Service ==
Maybe we should do something about these schools like ] and ]. There's a war going on over the names. Should the title, lede, and infobox title all match? I don't know, but I think I prefer it. And what about Cossade? I really can't figure out whether or not this editor is making good edits. Anyway, maybe we get everyone to sort it all out at talk, and then there is something to refer to as the ''correct'' way. Also, some page protects may be in order after this is sorted out. The rvs are daily. Best, ] (]) 00:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


'''Hi {{safesubst:<noinclude />BASEPAGENAME}}!''' You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the ], but you haven't made any edits to the English Misplaced Pages in over three years.
:You are absolutely correct. I kind of want to believe Cossde, given his experience...but part of me does not. See, the problem, as near as I can figure out, is twofold. First, there doesn't seem to be an "official name", or, if there is one, its not necessarily the same as the name used in reliable sources (which varies). There doesn't even seem to be an official website--Cossde has indicated that the schools have registered for wesbites, but apparently they're not running yet, and the old websites are unofficial. But the bigger problem is that there is apparently a major rivalry going on. I believe the main question is whether or not all of the schools are really "Royal Colleges", with some people pointing to the constitution and arcane legal docs, and others pointing to regular usage. I think Cossde even attempted to use the phrasing on a very old statue at one time to determine the name ordering. And it doesn't help, of course, that the "real" names aren't even in English. At the same time, the IP editors arguing against Cossde routinely insult and belittle him, and very rarely use the talk page (except for more insults).
:I've edited a number of the pages, and only acted administratively on one or two. And I have had a significant editing dispute with Cossde on the list of the alumni page relating to the need for refs and the use of honorific titles. So I find it very hard to judge, and reliable sources don't seem to be very clear.
:I guess what we need is a centralized RfC, with notifications on each page. I kind-of think that ] is the best, because its fairly well watched (and I don't think there's an active Sri Lanka project). Perhaps the articles should be semi-protected at the same time, or maybe even fully protected (this might force people to discuss, especially if we intentionally protected Cossde's version...he'll almost certainly discuss no matter what).
:Does this seem like a smart plan to an impartial observer like yourself? I know you can't make the protections happen, but I'm sure I can rustle up someone to do that as long as it seems like a good idea. ] (]) 03:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.
::Sounds like a good plan. And should I write to the Head Masters? Would that help? ] (]) 03:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::In my opinion, a letter to the head masters would not help, because the response to said letter, even if you got one, would not satisfy ] or ]. I've argued the same position before in other articles--sources need to be publicly released. They don't have to be free, they don't have to be easy to access, but private letters and communication simply aren't good enough.
:::I've asked Cossde to give me a list of all effected schools; I don't know if Colombo and Panadura are the only 2, or if there are more I don't see. ] (]) 23:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


'''You do not need to do anything about this''' - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:
::::Good plan. :) ] (]) 00:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


# Go to the ].
:::::Hi guys, Im sry to barge into your discussion. I came across on it when I came to answer Qwyrxian question. And Yes I will all ways come to discuss :).
# Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the ] and/or ] headings.
:::::The issue here is larger than what it seems here. ] is one of the premier schools in the country and as gained much animosity from many quarters. Its common to see attacks on the school that are verbal, written and even physical. Due to the popularity, it is often refereed to as Royal College or at times Royal College, Colombo 7 from the postal area where its located which is often considered the most exclusive residential area in the country. Due to the schools prominence other schools have adapted the same name as it is a common case in Sri Lanka and in the rest of the world. The schools at are referred to here are such (], ] and ]) and there is another school that have not been part of this edit war (]). My personal opinion is that these edit wars are not carried out by any in these schools or any one with the best interests of the schools, but is gone with the aim of using it to attack Royal College Colombo. As you can see the same editor is editing Royal College Colombo in a non-productive manner. My suspicions are the it may be ] who has attempted to mirror any edits done on Royal College Colombo on ] and when I attempt to correct the factual accuracies with refs; he has carried out edits on Royal College Colombo and associated articles that can be considered non-productive and lashed out at me in everything but good faith. My suspicions are based on remarks made by him such as this (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Cossde&diff=480774445&oldid=480638855). There is no sort of rivalry between Royal and Nalanda College, Colombo but it seems that they have a common tendency to emulate Royal :S (eg: ] and ], ] and ], Royal Parade and ], ] and Sandwani, etc). So this could be the underlining story in this whole edit war. ] (]) 15:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
# Paste {{tlx|1=Frs user|2=<nowiki>{{subst:currentuser}}</nowiki>|3=''limit''}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where ''limit'' is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
::::::THanks, Cossde; I'll try to start up an RfC in the next few days. ] (]) 21:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
# Publish the page.
{{outdent}} The RfC is open at ]. ] (]) 02:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.
== EW at Narayana sukta ==


Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.
There is a war going on at ]. I tried to do some clean up of poor sourcing etc but am otherwise uninvolved. I have had a chat with the two protagonists, one of whom is almost certainly also editing as an IP. I am away over the weekend - could you perhaps keep an eye on it? - ] (]) 16:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
:I was also away this weekend. The edit warring seems to have stopped at least temporarily. I've added it to my watchlist. ] (]) 21:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on ], or on ]. '''Thank you!''' ] (]) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
== Undelete request ==
<!-- Message sent by User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Naypta/FRS_pruned/May_2020&oldid=959250819 -->


== buddy ==
<s>Could you please restore ]? It was deleted at AfD for failing GNG. I helped the editor at IRC. I just discovered (via IRC) ], which appears to be the same thing rehashed. The creator denies any connection, but I think it's quite a coincidence, and would like to know if there's any verbatim text. If you can, pls dump it into one of my sandboxes. If you can't perhaps another admin stalker can. Many thanks,</s> ] (]) 08:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


lololololololololololololololololololololol <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Sorry, I thought I saw it go red. It's still around. ] (]) 08:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

== Please comment on ] ==

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 09:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

== He's baaaack ==

And apparently isn't getting the hint. Repeat offender, fresh off his block, is back making the same edit, yet again. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

== Digital Divide article ==

Hello. Without discussion, you removed the material on the MIT project Imara in the ] article. And you also removed material on Boston's digital connection initiative. You wrote in your comment that "We're going to need some independent sources that indicate that project is important to include". This material on the Imara project at MIT has been in the article for some time before it was deleted along with much other material in Fall 2011 for unclear reasons. The Imara project verbiage had citations, mostly from MIT publications. It's quite self explanatory. It's subsidized by Cisco, Google, et al. ( http://imara.csail.mit.edu/ ) It's been around for many years. I don't see your point. I've been editing Misplaced Pages since January 2005, so I don't sloppily put information into articles as you might wish to note. --- ] (]) 16:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:The length of time its been in the article, as well as the length of your volunteering, do not trump the fact that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate list of information. Given how broad that article's topic is, we should only be covering the most important information (that is, information that is of ]). That is going to mean information that is verified by independent sources. Otherwise, we have no reason to believe that MIT's program is particularly important or noted in the real world. You provided citations, but they were only from MIT publications. Without independent citations, the information does not belong in the article. ] (]) 21:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
::I find your strong-armed approach inappropriate. Had I enough time, I would attempt to take it to arbitration. But one is better left speechless at your actions and duly note them for future reference despite one's having tried to take your points. --- ] (]) 00:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Sorry, what? I'm merely following policy here; however, others may interpret policy differently in this circumstance. You're more than welcome to get other opinions. The first step to ] would be to open up a discussion on the article talk page. I'll go ahead and do that for you. If there is a consensus that the information belongs, I will certainly follow said consensus (pending, of course, possible further DR). If no one responds to that discussion, we can try to request a ]. You indicate you may be busy, so I'll be sure to link to your comments here in case you don't have time to respond. ] (]) 03:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::::No thanks. I'm not interested in pursuing this any further or I would have done so myself despite being busy. I want to get back to editing, not conversing to no end. Thanks for your comments, despite our difference of opinion. --- ] (]) 03:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

== You might ==

want to see Spaceman Spiff's recent post on my talk page about an editor you've run across. ] (]) 14:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:Sorry, I don't see, on your page or in the history, where SpacemanSpiff commented. I also don't see anything specific on your page that concerns a topic I'm familiar with. Could you point me more specifically at what you're thinking of? ] (]) 20:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::Ah, my bad. See {{user|Ancienzus}}. Now blocked as a sock of Kalarimaster. ] (]) 09:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Just to note, I'd asked Elockid to check over email to avoid ] which is quite important in this particular case (and also informed Doug then as I saw him post there, didn't notice that Q was also being sucked in to discussions with him). We've had way too much disruption from him in the past and I hope a few more people can get familiar with his behavior to identify him early on. cheers. &mdash;]''']''' 10:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Hi, just wanted to say thank you for your quick and decisive work removing the nonsense from ]. I didn't like the look of the new section either, but lacked the experience to take such unilateral action, or at least to be able to articulate why it was so necessary. Keep up the good work! ] (]) 22:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hey, dear. I want your help. Please warn (or whatever) to ]. Check his edits on ], he spoiled the article badly by repeating same statements many times and more. I can't handle such new comers, so requesting you to give him a sense or tutorial. It irritates me on someone unfamiliar with wiki spoils articles created by myself because created then after reading much about wiki, it's rules, article layout, neutrality etc.. 'll be grateful to you. ] 03:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
:I've reverted Gary's edits, and commented on his talk page. I've also made significant edits to the article as well.
:However, I do have to say that if you get irritated when new editors change your articles, you're probably not a good fit for Misplaced Pages. Our core means of working is for information one person adds or changes to be further edited and changed by others. Sometimes the changes aren't helpful, but sometimes they are. Sometimes they need modification, or sometimes should just be rolled back. If you're unhappy with such changes, it's going to be difficult for you to work on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

== rhetoric a useful background ==

I wonder what you might think of .

I quite liked the parts where they ripped fluffy business books and talked about how the "new" is really recurrent. I didn't like it as much when they actually tried to be a business book (vice commenting). But still...thought it was interesting how they had a different take and were informed by the background of one of the writers being a trained rhetoritician. (I'm not.)

] (]) 01:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
:I've not heard of the book before. I don't read many management books (and the ones I've read, I don't really like). Though, perhaps, that means I might like this one :). Thanks for the suggestion. ] (]) 12:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

==Uttar Pradesh==
I'm trying to develop article in GA manner.Saw your maintenance tag..can you please list the violating contents. Thanks a lot <font color="MediumSlateBlue" face="Tahoma">]</font><sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 14:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
:Yes, I'll explain in the next day or two. If you don't hear anything from me in a few days, go ahead and remove the tag. I can always come back w/specific suggestions later. ] (]) 15:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
::*Fine, as you wish...!!! <font color="MediumSlateBlue" face="Tahoma">]</font><sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 09:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

== Hii ==

responsibility of montage issue is yours, you come to consensus on other montages, including american Indians article, then attack indian ethnicity articles ] (]) 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
:No sir. Consensus is that the montages should be removed on all articles related to Indian communities. You will need to get consensus to readd the montage. I have no idea if a similar consensus would hold on other articles--it's up to you if you want to explore the issues. You can't use the argument that another vaguely related article does something, so you can do it here, especially when there is a solid consensus against it. And no, you can't say that I have to first go to the other articles and fix them. There are nearly 4 million articles on English Misplaced Pages, I couldn't possibly touch more than a tiny fraction of that; and what each editor does is up to them, as this is a 100% volunteer project. ] (]) 14:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

::I agree with you, but i cannot agree with you on montage, you please discuss montage issue with admins and undo my montage ] (]) 15:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
::I have not added any references now or additional content in my recent edits, I have rearranged the notable people section, you cant deny it, just like that montage i completely disagree with your view ] (]) 15:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
::your view point of removing montage appears POV,
::three revert rule appeals to u also,
::It is ur responsibility to explain what is the difference u find in this article and other caste realtes articles ] (]) 16:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
::see any strong consensus, i will not accept POV ] (]) 16:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
::Hinduism in india article, khatri article, etc where is the consensus?? ] (]) 16:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Alright, first, please do not start a new section for every single comment. Use colons to indent each comment one level more than the last person.
:::As for the montage discussion, it was held at the ]. You can see the specific discussion at ]. On June 18, ], who is an administrator, summarized the discussion and found that the consensus is that montages should not be included in any caste related articles. You can read regentspark's summary of the discussion. As for ], that doesn't, I believe, count as a "caste related article". As for ], I'll go remove the photos now. ] (]) 21:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

== Intolerable behaviour by new ] ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding the intolerable behaviour by new ]. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.

You probably already know about this, but I have to include you by WP:ANI guidelines, sorry (that its so delayed also)...

] ]] 07:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

::Please desist from whipping up so much opposition. I apologized already. ] (]) 12:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:::His post here came before your apology. Why don't you stop trying to go everywhere around this place to defend your (IMHO) indefensible behavior? ] (]) 12:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

== Talk:Saini IPs ==

Despite their geographical disparity, the current tranche of IPs at ] form some definite groups. I did the following analysis last week, based on the IPs then listed at the (unarchived) page:
*{{u|144.30.121.42}} - University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
**{{u|144.30.69.176}} - University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
**{{u|76.125.76.20}} - Comcast Cable, Little Rock, Arkansas
**{{u|76.125.80.61}} - Comcast Cable, Little Rock, Arkansas
**{{u|76.125.76.20}} - Comcast Cable, Little Rock, Arkansas
*{{u|99.233.29.22}} - Rogers Cable, Toronto, Ontario
**{{u|99.233.132.217}} - Rogers Cable, Toronto, Ontario
**{{u|74.198.9.233}} - Rogers Wireless, Toronto, Ontario
**{{u|74.198.9.232}} - Rogers Wireless, Toronto, Ontario
**{{u|74.198.9.141}} - Rogers Wireless, Toronto, Ontario
*{{u|106.78.110.95}} - Idea Cellular, Gurgaon, Haryana
**{{u|106.78.123.27}} - Idea Cellular, Gurgaon, Haryana
*{{u|106.76.173.208}} - Idea Cellular, Delhi
*{{u|49.14.114.229}} - Idea Cellular, Delhi
*{{u|59.164.4.229}} - Tata Communications, New Delhi
*{{u|108.17.0.34}} - Verizon, Edison, New Jersey
*{{u|24.23.165.181}} - Comcast Cable, San Jose, California
*{{u|68.98.36.5}} - Cox Communications. Phoenix, Arizona
*{{u|162.71.106.236}} - Christus Health, Katy, Texas

The first two groups (Arkansas & Ontario) are the most vociferous. I have no idea if they are meats or even proxies but at the very least it seems certain from the edits that they are each moving around their own two IP ranges. I also suspect that the last (162.*) may be connected to the Arkansas situation, and I know that {{u|Dewan357}} is based in New Jersey, has a Verizon account and is likely to be on their vacation around now.<p>None of this - nor the frequent failure to sign - amounts to anything more than a fishing expedition at the moment and therefore it is pointless taking it to ]. However, there is also a confirmed (& blocked) sockmaster & puppet on that talk page from around April. Can you see any connections there? Whatever is going on, it is very, very odd. - ] (]) 12:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
**Dewan has Verizon, but his primary is Optimum Cable (or something like that) and there's numerous coffee shops and libraries that he uses. &mdash;]''']''' 12:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

== Formal mediation has been requested ==
{{Ivmbox
| <!---MedComBot-Do-not-remove-this-line-Notified-Comfort women--->The ] has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Comfort women". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. ] is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the ], the ], and the ], '''please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate.''' Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 July 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.<br>
<small>Message delivered by ] (]) on ] of the Mediation Committee. 15:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)</small>
}}

== If there is ever ==

a definition of that becomes part of the Misplaced Pages lexicon, the response edits ], as well as that respondent's on that particular page could be used as illustrative examples. ] (]) 16:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:21, 2 April 2022

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Qwyrxian has not edited Misplaced Pages since January 2014. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Talk page archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57



WWE Personnel

Hi, As a protecting user of the article List of WWE personnel, I would like to inform you that try to notify users to follow wwe.com to keep that article accurate.

1) if a person is in RAW then he should be under RAW list and Vice Versa. 2) if a person either got released, retired, or serving as a free agent or inactive for any reason, if they listed under current roster on website but not under brands, then he should'be listed under unassigned brands, and if he showed under brand on website then that should happen same as website do as listing them under their desired brands. if WWE.com shows John cena under raw then list him under RAW as same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broken nutshell (talk • contribs) 15:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request Service

Hi Qwyrxian! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Misplaced Pages in over three years.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

  1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
  2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
  3. Paste {{Frs user|{{subst:currentuser}}|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
  4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

buddy

lololololololololololololololololololololol — Preceding unsigned comment added by - INSERT VALID NAME- (talk • contribs) 03:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Categories: