|
User talk:Just Chilling/Archive 11
Sushil432Hello, I am interested in hearing any comments you have about Sushil432's unblock request(formerly Susthesurfer). I have some thoughts already but want to hear from you to see if I am right. Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Happy New Year! Hello Just Chilling: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, 5 albert square (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Just Chilling!  Just Chilling, Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
23650Hey! Sorry, clicked the "quick comment" box in error.-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – January 2019News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
please undo your protection of a redirectI agree that the consensus of the AFD was to redirect Fructus Tower to the corresponding list-article. But it is unprecedented as far as I know and it was not a consensus decision that the redirect should be protected for administrators only. Honestly I expect that no one is going to restore and develop a separate article, but protection would interfere with potential future legitimate development of the topic by some future innocent party using sources we don't happen to know about yet. You can have it on your watchlist, but I believe it is not proper to protect it. Would you please unprotect it, or give your opinion on the right forum to review this decision. I have participated in a few thousand AFDs, many involving decisions to redirect, and I do believe this is not normal practice. In general, IMO, undue protection sets up obstacles for future development, and I know of no edit-warring or whatever to justify special treatment here. Like, for AFDs where the outcome is delete, a simple deletion is performed, and almost never is a "salting" done (which would prevent recreation of the article). It is almost always immediately the case that a new article could be created by anyone (which they should only do if they have substantial more to add, because they can see that in fact an AFD occured and they should jolly well consider the AFD discussion), and that is a good thing, not a problem. The same also applies for your protecting Fructus Plaza. The combo of your actions with these and your edit(s) in the List of tallest buildings in Romania article actually would make it hard for a future editor to find the previous version of article, because they would not know of "Fructus Tower" having been the name of the article. It would be better for the record if the new Fructus Plaza article/redirect were deleted, then to move the Fructus Tower article to Fructus Plaza (and would exist as a redirect to the row in the list-article). And for none of these to be protected. Could you make those changes please? Also, your edit summaries such as "Protected "Fructus Plaza": Redirect created as a result of an AFD" are not up to the standard... I believe the edit summary should specifically link to the AFD itself, i.e. to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fructus Tower. Thank you for stepping in to help. I am guessing you might not have done a lot of this type of work yet. I do believe the guidelines for closing AFDs specify that wikilinking should be done in the edit summary. It helps future editors find their way. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Unban discussion for ThepoliticsexpertNotice of noticeboard discussion
Administrators' newsletter – February 2019News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019). 
User:01leeteoHi, Could you please take a look at this user for me? Up until this edit their contributions are OK. Then about 3 minutes after he made that edit, they made this one which looks a little odd with the spelling issues. Then about 20 minutes later, this edit was made followed by this one. I've asked them to explain their edits, and just got an unsigned response saying that they are true. However, Lorraine Kelly was not born in 1929 and DJ Nihal was not born in 1921. I'm wondering if this is a compromised account. Could you please look at the contributions and give me your opinion?-- 5 albert square (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC) UTRS QuestionHey Just Chilling! Did you mean to move this appeal to the CU queue? I don't see anything for a CU to do there.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
UTRS 24158I wonder if the third account will make an appeal? Felt like I was starring in Groundhog Day when I looked at the second appeal!
Administrators' newsletter – March 2019News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
AfD City West HousingHi Just Chilling. I refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City West Housing. Would you consider withdrawing? I note you state that you could not find anything except in relation Salford? It seems possible to me google has outsmarted you and filtered to your country/location? Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC) VoucherCodes DeletionOn 25th March, you moved the page VoucherCodes to Draft:VoucherCodes citing the reason as "NO chance of surviving an AFD without independent RS". Could you explain this a little further please? (Apologies, I'm still relatively new to this so would be good to get a better understanding). I know the page has been removed before for unambiguous promotion, however I edited the copy heavily to move to a more neutral voice and removed any promotional material. I understand that the page is focused on one particular brand, however a competitor of ours (MyVoucherCodes) has a page incredibly similar to ours and seems to be allowed to remain with no issue. Thanks TaylorJ1294 (talk)) 10:07, 3 April (BST) —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – April 2019News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
UTRS requests not clearingHi, just noticed that a UTRS request (24644) that you closed yesterday did not automatically update (clear) on this side. It's not isolated to that request; 24651 appears to have the same issue. Do you know anything about the mechanism that closes them? OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
UTRSHello, you just denied UTRS ticket #24775 and I just wished to clarify some details as to why it's an issue - the primary being my work environment mandates the usage of a VPN. I do not know the requirements of IPBE as well as an UTRS admin but I believe that is a just cause, atleast with respect to IPBEs for one particular rangeblock. Turning off the VPN automatically means I cannot login to the work environment and going between Wikipedia and work (both of which are on-and-off things) makes it a repetitive and time-consuming process between losing connection while an IP address is allocated and then further if it's on and I get hit by an autoblock. It's hard enough as it is but it's not my choice, and while you reduced my UTRS rationale to "you can just switch off your VPN", I would like it if you imagined doing that for an entire day. I will not contest this if you say that there's no need for it, as I cannot provide a more compelling reason, to you or any other administrator. Thanks a lot for reviewing it either way. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for everything you do! ♥ Wishing Just Chilling a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Coffeesweet (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC) UTRS questionIs there a reason why you reserve the new UTRS appeals in batches as opposed to just the one you are currently reviewing? There are many times I log in to UTRS as appeals show as outstanding at CAT:RFU only to find you've reserved them all, sometimes up to hours before. I feel like I've asked you this previously but I can't remember your reasoning. While you do the lion's share at UTRS, which is hugely appreciated, I have to admit it's sort of an irritating habit. (sorry!) -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 special circular
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community. Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised. We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered. For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – May 2019News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
Global blocksHey, just following up on UTRS 25302. I went ahead and granted local IPBE when I saw the request on meta (because of the recent China problems, I follow those so I can grant locally when needed.) Local IPBE allows a user to edit through global blocks. Global IPBE does not allow a user to edit through local blocks. Depending on the users xwiki activity (and the steward who sees the request), they are likely to kick back someone who only wants global IPBE to us to give it locally. In cases where a user wants to edit through a global block only on en.wiki, just letting a local CU review for en.wiki IPBE is usually the quickest way to get it done :) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 The file File:George Herbert Hirst.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC) UTRS TrollHey! Do we know which user is doing this? I've come across a couple of the trolls requests before but only once they've been closed. The reason I picked up that Citation bot's UTRS appeal was likely to be them is because there's already an unblock discussion about the bot's block on its own talk page. That and Citation bot's operator is actually an administrator and so knows how the unblock system works.-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The IP editor who adds lots of (the)s, changes tenses, and mixes date formatsUser talk:24.191.243.36 has returned after the three month restriction you placed on IP 24.19.243.36—six edits in May, two so far in June. Same m.o. Sorry to drop this on you, but you did sign your post. — Neonorange (Phil) 02:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – June 2019News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
Hi. I've made a comment at UTRS appeal #25508, and I hope you don't mind if I give you a heads-up in case nobody has seen it. I'd like someone else to take it over. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations!!
Administrators' newsletter – July 2019News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
Remove my IPBE bitI have exhausted my need for IPBE and do not need it in the foreseeable future (for a month atleast), thus I think it's best if you remove it. With thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC) unblcok appealsI'm on vacation from work, so I'm going through the Unblock back log. Got two now that I'm awaiting editor response on. Imagine waiting all this time, and when someone seriously puts serious effort into these difficult cases, the users are not around. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC) unblockHi Just Chilling I am the italian user from ip range 151.48.0.0/17 who made an unblock request by utrs You say "there is no restriction on users creating an account on en-wiki" this is not correct To create this account i am using right now i had to connect from another ip range because if i try creating an account in en.wikipedia.org from the blocked ip range the following message appears 'Editing from your IP address range (151.48.0.0/17) has been blocked (disabled) on all Wikimedia wikis until 19:38, 13 December 2019 by Masti (meta.wikimedia.org) for the following reason: Cross-wiki spam: spambot This block began on 19:38, 13 June 2019' After creating an account by bypassing this block as i did i am actually able to log in and edit from the blocked ip range but to do this a user has to bybass the block somehow first to create an account Since the reason of the steward's global block was a user who created several accounts from this ip range just to spam messages ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/Masti&offset=20190615224135&limit=20 ) the way this block works does not protect wikipedia from the vandal's spam because he could do as i did to create new accounts to spam but just prevents good unregistered users connecting from this ip range to help with their constructive contributions Take in consideration the possibility to change the block settings please in order to allow anonymous users to edit en.wikipedia.org while leaving account creation disallowed In case they abuse in any way then the block can be set again but i am sure that no disruptive edits will come from this ip range at least not more than from any other ip range not blocked on en.wikipedia.org Semplicemente Agghiacciante
Thank you for checking ! If there is a glitch could you please report it to somebody who can fix it ? What i do not understand is the need of blocking anonymous users who had not done anything wrong since the cause of the block was an abuse in account creation which instead you say is allowed This seems absurd to me because it should work exactly in the opposite way...instead in this way the vandal would be free to continue with his massive account creation while all the other unguilty users will be prevented from contributing Semplicemente Agghiacciante
Well ok then I will try asking some stewards about this issue May you tell me the name of some english stewards i can ask ? It would be even better if you could report about this glitch to somebody you know he might be able to check and fix it Thank you anyway for replying Semplicemente Agghiacciante
I already tried a few of those methods but without success I will continue trying then Semplicemente Agghiacciante utrs 25825Hello. I tried requsting CU, and it said it couldn't. It won't let me release and it's out of "new". Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding broken redirects...Sorry to bother you. I've done some more research and AnomieBOT III would have taken care of that particular problem. It's still obviously generally a good idea to check WLH, but not necessary in a self-iniated situation like this. Retro (talk | contribs) 17:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC) @Retro: Ah! That's helpful; thanks! :-) Just Chilling (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Cristina GoughHi! Just gonna say that your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Gough and explanation is top notch! Sadly, I feel this will be the subject of a deletion review by accusing that you did a WP:SUPERVOTE. Personally, I am getting quite annoyed at billions of sport related BLP permastubs that squeak through (too inclusive) sport guidelines. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
BlockPlease block user:84.13.26.48 for vandalism. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Christopher C. LeeThank you for concluding the AfD and for deleting. This was the fourth time that "Christopher C. Lee" had been deleted. If the article isn't salted, I expect that it will be re-created and re-deleted, wasting yet more of people's time. How about salting it? -- Hoary (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Could you help me understand your closure of this AfD, especially "The user account was globally locked on 16 July but the article was created on 14 July." Am I to understand G5 speedies require the page to be somehow created after the account is blocked? Бајеццобола was blocked on bs.wiki on 8. July for abuse of multiple accounts, well before the article was created; it merely took the stewards longer to get to the case. Yahadzija was globally banned in 2017; any edit thereafter is illegitimate, and this is an unambiguous sock (I'm a CU, FWIW). Эlcobbola talk 22:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi sorry to ask about this- as you have closed the nomination already. There seem to be 4 votes for delete/merge including myself? And only 2 votes for keep (after striking the sockpuppet)? But the two votes, who also voted last time, for keep didn't provide any arguments in the discussion (i.e. evidence of secondary sourcing), when they were asked to? The article is primarily self-sourcing to his own organization or WP:OR, based on the Swedish article - it is also not secondary coverage, and was possibly created by someone connected to the subject in the original version. Also how many votes usually constitute a consensus in these nominations? (i.e. there are 4 votes for merge/delete vs 2 votes for keep, but this is no consensus and closure of the discussion already)? Avaya1 (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC) You closed this with the statement "Overwhelming consensus that this boxer does not meet notability guidelines". Would you consider removing this, as nearly all of the arguments for deletion were based on speedy deletion criteria G4 and G5, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject's notability? Thanks. --Michig (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Article "Felix Chidi Idiga"Hello Just Chilling, You recently deleted an article i wrote about a subject "Felix Chidi Idiga" for not meeting up with WP:GNG. I am soliciting for your help to improve the article as the subject is a well known and a renowned businessman in Nigeria with a lot of reliable media sources covering his expedition.Jesusonogor (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – August 2019News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
You're welcome!Please oh please (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Heh?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – September 2019News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
Pleasechange your decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunil Khandbahale to No Consensus. I forgot to watch-list the page and thus, failed to respond to Anne. Rajesh Patil is an obvious paid-editor who has been editing for years on this single topic. ∯WBGconverse 10:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC) MoatassemakmalHey I am Egyptian user from IP range 102.186.7.183 Can you restore UTRS access than you block me since May so I can make one block appeal it's my only chance to do it please?. 102.186.7.183 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.186.7.183 (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – October 2019News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
Administrators' newsletter – November 2019News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Administrators' newsletter – December 2019News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Deleted Article Felix Chidi idigaHello Just Chilling, on the 20 July 2019 you deleted this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Felix_Chidi_Idiga, i have made adequate research and have improved this article tremendously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Felix_Chidi_Idiga please peruse through and reinstate. Thank You. Chimaezeogoegbunam (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – January 2020News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).
Administrators' newsletter – February 2020News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
Administrators' newsletter – March 2020News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
Administrators' newsletter – April 2020News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
Happy Adminship Anniversary!  Have a very Chilling happy adminship anniversary on your special day! Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – May 2020News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
Administrators' newsletter – June 2020News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).
Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary! From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC) Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – July 2020News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN. Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux Talk 00:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – August 2020News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
Thank You for Your Edits to Lakelands Park Middle SchoolI was editing Lakelands Park Middle School, checked out the history and noticed you were an active contributor to the page, and its creator. I am currently a student at the school, and I want to thank you for your contributions to the page, and for adding it to wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:8500:E9F0:5D80:1CAB:A9E4:7B34 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
Nomination of 3rd Gymnasium of Agia Paraskevi for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 3rd Gymnasium of Agia Paraskevi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd Gymnasium of Agia Paraskevi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Place Clichy (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Happy First Edit Day!Have a very happy first edit anniversary! From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Nomination of Derrick Lonsdale for deletionA discussion is taking place as to whether the article Derrick Lonsdale, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted. The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Lonsdale (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Your contributed article, Redeemer University
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Redeemer University. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Redeemer University College. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Redeemer University College. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page. If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 01:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "Laundry mark" listed at Redirects for discussion
The article Bishop Ellis Catholic Primary School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing since you stopped editing You have been inactive for more than 6 months and have been removed from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee birthday list. If you become active again please feel free to re-add yourself. Best wishes, Chris Troutman (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Alberto VO5
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Alberto VO5 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dan arndt (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
