This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ritchie333. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There is some advice given here. A general criteria I would use is if you know of an editor who has had multiple ANI threads raised about their conduct, none of which have closed as any consensus, then by definition that's a problem the community cannot handle and hence is suitable as a case party. That's the context I used for suggesting adding 7&6=thirteen as a party. Of the other major players in the numerous AfD-related threads at ANI over the past year, all the others I can think of have been blocked or topic banned in some manner, so I would class them as problems the community can and did handle, and hence arbitration is not required. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I see, somebody has already asked in relation to somebody else. That makes sense, and follows process. I just wish it was wider in scope, although it might quite huge. I see what I do with that. scope_creepTalk13:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Cheers. Stuck for sources about anything else, so it's sadly on the short side and seems to be the tube station they all gloss over for the more important ones nearby, but them's the breaks.... Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Given that Ritchie did this after I'd started the RfD, I can't really fault him for it. Personally, I saw it as unnecessary in the face of a second RfD, but it's valid enforcement of an XfD consensus. Incidentally, @Anomie, I was actually going to ask, regarding this case: Is there any way to get the bot to skip a title that has been previously deleted with "Redirects for discussion" mentioned somewhere in the deletion summary, maybe notifying some appropriate page instead? Or, better yet... although this might be a separate task... for the bot to reply at RfD if one of its redirects is created, suggesting that we bundle in the en-dash version? (I guess really anyone could set up that latter task, looking through Category:Avoided double redirects/error.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)19:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The article Warren Street tube station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Warren Street tube station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
New Page Review queue June 2022
Hello Ritchie333,
Backlog status
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
Backlog drive
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
TIP – New school articles
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
Misc
There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 12925 articles, as of 20:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gibson G-101 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Unexpectedlydian -- Unexpectedlydian (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to look at this, as the Folkestone Harbour review came in at the same time and I've been busy elsewhere all over the weekend. Hopefully I'll get round to addressing the issues in the next few days. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Running from July 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event focused on the topic of women and the environment. Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works during the event period (with an emphasis on environmental links and topics). GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
Hi, Ritch - before I nominate these hotels for ?speedy? or AfD - will you take a look at them. I'm thinking speedy because (a) they're not notable, (b) it's obvious promo, and (c) PE?? It's pretty obvious when you look at the editor's contributions. I'm a bit confused as to why this editor (admin) decided to tag that particular promo for all the reasons it should have been speedy deleted. Atsme💬📧11:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Looks like a prime WP:G11 if you ask me, and I've tagged it as such. Sometimes it can be shown that a hotel article is notable if it had a long service under a previous name, or serving some other purpose, or if the site of the hotel sits on was previously used for something documented in reliable sources. For example, consider The Courthouse Hotel London, which is not really notable in itself but is documented (amongst other things) as the place where Oscar Wilde met his downfall in 1895 and Mick Jagger and Keith Richards got "busted" in 1967. This article doesn't appear to have any of those claims, and is written like a stereotypical vanispamcruftisment, so it doesn't belong here. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
could you help me? I am trying to add an article but it has been reverted and protected it.
Subject is an actor and person in the movie. Subject is not a movie.
Conversation on talk page is as follows...
"I reverted your latest attempt to bypass the protection currently placed upon the creation of the article Caylee Cowan by using alternative capitalization. Do not do this again.
It has already been suggested in the past that you take the proper route to create an article for this subject. I also suggest you take that route. |Uncle Milty | talk|00:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Uncle MIlty, I did not intend to bypass by using alternative capitalization. My intention was to add more citations to websites where the subject is mentioned because the subject has been in several movies and is offer cited in news. The subject Caylee Cowan is not a movie. this is an actor in the movie that it is being redirected to. All citations are from notable and verifiable sources and so I do not understand why it is deleted when other wikis are made for actors who are of similar notability such as Travis Burns (actor), Emily Tosta ,David Sheftell, Charley Koontz, William Shockley (actor), Erin Bethea, Jenn Gotzon, Charlotte D'Alessio, all of whom the subject has worked with. Articleeditscontributor (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)"
The article Gibson G-101 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gibson G-101 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Unexpectedlydian -- Unexpectedlydian (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Ongoing trouble with Mathsci‘s Friends / Network
Hi Ritchie333. I‘m addressing you because I saw you banned Mathsci. For a long time I‘ve had exactly the same problems with him - like obviously so many others, described in the Administrators' noticeboard. He wouldn‘t stop edit warring and deleting sourced and relevant material, without good reason or arguments. He also repeatedly changed the meaning or the appearance of my contributions on various talk pages. Most of that in articles about music, especially around the composer Frédéric Chopin.
In his farewell-statement, Mathsci identified his friends/network, like Smerus or the administrator Johnuniq. This made me see many things more clear and understand: Together, they tried to intimidate me, heckle me or even hound me and deleted my well sourced contributions without good arguments, more than once obviously acting as a group. [1][2][3][4][5]
Like that, Mathsci, Smerus and Nihil novi also started dominating and undermining a RfC, filibustering without end and with this conduct omitting sources and quotes which are relevant for the discourse, but they personally didn‘t like.
That’s not the conduct you would expect of users and contributors of an open and free encyclopedia like Wikipedia, is it? Could you have a look at that please or give me a hint? Perhaps also Hammersoft could help? Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
What is the meaning of calling me Mathsci's 'friend', or in his 'network', exactly? I do not know him, and was not associated with the topic which resulted in his ban. I should be grateful to know of exactly what I am being accused here. I see that Chip-chip has launched a similar attack against me at User_talk:François_Robere#RfC_Chopin. Chip-chip is responsible for serial WP:NNPOV attempts to 'prove' that Chopin and some of his circle were homosexual, against the consensus of Chopin scholars and biographers. I and others consistently revert his attempts to burden WP articles with irrelevant gossip. The RfC on Chopin agreed with this approach. If Chip-chip has a grievance or complaint about me, let him be explicit and make it in an open forum, rather than on a user's talk page.--Smerus (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Chip-chip-2020, serious accusations require serious evidence. I'm not saying the evidence isn't available, but if it is, build it up and lay it out in clear terms, using as little verbiage as possible. Approach the users in question, and ask for an explanation. If it's unsatisfactory, then move on to WP:DRN. Follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Ritchie is in no more of a position to do anything about this than any of us, barring presentation of serious evidence. Even so, it's unlikely that any action that blocked or even banned one of these editors would be taken unless there was an ongoing disruption to the project. This is something the community would decide. So, develop your evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, Ritchie, I'll let you use it for a little while, but only after you finish your homework and do your chores. And no more sneaky looking at Bomis. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I enacted the ban in as much as I closed the discussion, but I simply took what I saw as community consensus and acted upon it. I can give my opinion on whether or not a topic ban was violated, but I would much prefer any sanctions to be handled by another administrator. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand why you reverted my contribution of Euston railway station. Before my contribution and after your revert, the article reads: "...including the demolition of the Great Hall, while a 11,000-square-foot (1,000 m2) temporary building housed..." I'm not a native speaker, but I think because it's pronounced "eleventhousend square foot", it must be "an eleventhousand" and not "a eleventhousand"? --Cyfal (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, "a eleven thousand square foot temporary building" doesn't scan wrong to me. Interesting that nobody else has reverted, though. And the edit summary of "spelling" (it was more of a grammar fix) was misleading - although it's better than this edit which is not a "typo" at all, but messing around with dashes for no good reason. (And .... breathe .....) Still, I'll take the above two comments as consensus and revert. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Greeting, I would like to ask you to review the closing of Articles for deletion/Stereo Satellite per possible WP:DRVPURPOSE (#1). You mentioned the "Views are split primarily between keep and merge" and overlooked that there was a consensus for "Delete". Lacking a reason for discounting any of the three "Delete" !votes, leads to questions of misinterpretation.
I hit an edit conflict with your closing but was preparing a "Delete" !vote as the majority of sources are shared industry related promotional press releases even containing the same unsourced group picture which I don't believe advances notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
As I'm sure you're aware, AfD is not a vote; of the comments as I saw them, the only really convincing argument to delete the article came from doomsdayer520, and that was refuted somewhat by Zeddedm. There was a brief back-and-forth between Jan 0677 and FMSky, which didn't find agreement, but which did suggest a redirect would be appropriate. Essentially, the good points made in the AfD were all refuted by good counter-arguments, and that's what led me to close as no consensus. Regarding your intended !vote, I don't think that would have particularly changed the outcome as it doesn't address the arguments for a redirect, which would lead me to conclude there was an insufficient counter-argument to it. It might have skewed the close to "views are split between redirect and delete, with a side order of keep" but still ended up as no consensus anyway. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Didn't there used to be a bot that would handle this sort of thing, going round bare URLs and formatting them up neatly so you could just whack a URL between a <ref> tag sandwich and let a computer do the hard work? I'm sure Iridescent or one of his talk page stalker army would remember. It might have prevented this ANI drama festival. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Iridescent hasn’t edited for around about a month now, so a reply is unlikely to be forthcoming. I wonder what he’s been up to in the real world. A bot that automatically formats refs sounds incredibly convenient. Hopefully someone else can drop by and mention if such a bot still exists; it would be quite a useful tool for handling those stupid citation things. 2604:3D08:4F83:4500:FCF8:D83F:EFF:3876 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I doubt a bot could do it with sufficient accuracy to be useful and might cause unwanted effects if it puts the wrong things in fields. Sources don't exactly format themselves in a predictable way, with author, title and date often found in strange corners of the webpage. I use User:V111P/js/WebRef in my browser when formatting refs, which is very nice, but it doesn't always get everything right. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
You can actually program Webref to look for metadata for websites that you use frequently. Only issue is that Webref doesn't see things like authors very well. Refill is great in that it can just edit things into cite web and could just get a bit to do that. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)15:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Hmm that might be worth looking into, although I'm not sure if I use any individual sources consistently enough to warrant that... I guess refill typing out the template parameter names for you is useful and is great when used in careful hands, although I'd be wary in cases where all it did was reformat the bare URL into a bare URL hiding inside a {{cite web}} template... — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- I use refill all the time and it has never had any issues. I think we would benefit from lots of people using it, adding metadata for the sites they use to a central place. Things like publisher dates and authors are always difficult unless programmed. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)18:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Aye, adding references on Wikipedia is the most annoying part of editing, hands down. If Citoid and friends didn't exist I don't think I would ever have bothered writing articles.
Regarding bots, the closest thing we have is User:Citation bot. My thinking is that we need something like User:ClueBot NG that can be taught to interpret websites so that it can harvest citation parameters from them, just like ClueBot NG has been taught to spot vandalism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
I'm fine, I was knocked out for 36 hours and spent a week testing positive and feeling bored and fed up with not much to do than write articles on here. I can see it in my contributions list - a gap between 4 and 7 March and then a bucketload of mainspace edits, including finally pulling Farfisa up from the ground, giving it a good old shake up, and taking it through GA. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I noticed you edited the page KeepTruckin last year. It's got new issues I was hoping you could help resolve ... It needs someone to verify the info and change the page name to Motive. RDGray22 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Speaking as someone just coming back from officially not being well
I'm sorry to hear of your malady whatever it might be. I caught Covid at the end of GenCon and have had to sit on the sidelines for a couple of weeks. Feeling much better the last few days. Take care of yourself. BusterD (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey Ritchie, remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The operational to liberal the hala'ib triangle? You closed it as "merge", and I don't dispute that, but the article title was turned into a redirect into the proper merge target. Redirects are supposed to be logical and useful, and I sincerely doubt someone is going to type "The operational to liberal the hala'ib triangle" when they mean "Liberation of Halaib Triangle", unless both of their hands are broken and they are being electrocuted Three Stooges style at the same time. Is it proper for me to ask you to simply delete the redirect, or do I have to formally nominate it? -Indy beetle (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't really have any view on the article or the redirect; I just closed the AfD looking at the consensus I saw. If you want to delete the redirect, I think that would need a new consensus at WP:RfD. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Need ur expert 'pinion
Demon Queen - See this, but because I cannot see the state of the article when deleted, I'm not sure its recreation is not a repeat performance. Either way, it is dependent on the inherited notability of Black Moth Super Rainbow, and s'pose the latter is notable because a "record label" published them? Your thoughts, please? Atsme💬📧16:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The deleted version of that article was a disambiguation page, and was deleted per WP:G5 so not deleted for any concerns over the quality of the page (so much for "comment on the content, not the contributor"). The present version does not qualify for WP:G4 anyway, as it was not deleted via a discussion. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Need Rollback of List of Viola Compositions A to B, etc.
Hi, you are the administrator who resolved the deletion discussion for List of Compositions for Viola: A to B (and other letters of the alphabet) with a resolution of Keep. The person who nominated the pages for deletion has tried to circumvent that decision by severely editing all of the pages into a drastically reduced page just called Viola repertoire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viola_repertoire#C). I don't know about the rollback process to understand how to start it, but is this something that you can assist with? The wholesale removal of these pages is just devastating to the viola community. Dbynog (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks, Gerda, and my apologies to Ritchie if I went about this the wrong way and cluttered up his talk page... Dbynog (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, been off-wiki for a few days. It looks like WP:BEFOREMOVING was not followed, you should never move a page if you believe it to be controversial (and the DRV comments certainly indicate it is). So I think you would have consensus to revert. As you do that, I'm not sure as it looks a bit technically complicated, maybe ask for assistance at ANI? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
If you are talking to me: no I won't revert. I would like the bold ignorer of a consensus to revert himself (why am I so sure that is a man?), but my English proved not good enough. Could you talk to the user? I strongly believe that both an overview and the detailed lists could exist on this generous project. No surprise: same user who nominated Busoni for deletion which I had completely forgotten. Inconsistently, in that case the short version was deleted. Why not have both? I ask. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
And I am really unfamiliar with the process for reverting (especially something so technically complicated) or how to best ask for assistance. Is there any other way to get this process started or resolved? If need be, I will work on trying to get this reverted correctly, but I am about to be offline myself for a couple of weeks. Dbynog (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
The safest - but tedious - way is to go to each article's edit history, and step by step - from the latest to the earliest - perform an undo. However: I talked to the user, and am rather sure that they would just revert a revert. Ritchie, I think, someone has to clarify that the interpretation of "keep" displayed is not acceptable to us. I hate to go to ANI, as you know, - would you try a talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
As the closing admin, I generally don't know much about the history of the article or what to do (which I think is correct, admins should be completely uninvolved in any dispute). I notice that the DRV is still running, and several people have suggested doing a revert. I would suggest the first thing to do is to either ping Why? I Ask into a discussion or drop a note on their talk page, saying that their bold changes have been objected, and could we please revert and discuss? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Please see Why's talk and/or my comments further up here (August songs): I tried, I tried again, I tried again. My English is not enough. Please check if yours is better. The articles were shrunk to almost nothing, and to the least interesting: only the works with a link, which everybody should know anyway. All the interesting bits of information (unknown works by known composers, and - better - unknown works by unknown composers) are lost. Yes, in article histories, but not freely accessible. That's not my idea of a keep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Don't worry, it wasn't a page move, just a merge that required a new title (as obviously "A–B" wouldn't make sense for this purpose). As WP:Merge says: If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it. However, now that there is opposition, I have now started a discussion on the WikiProject about how to go along with this and many other similar pages. I didn't circumvent any decision. I just felt that the decision was different: that there is some consensus that lists of repertoire/compositions are notable. So I made the page comply with Wikipedia's guidelines/policies. Gerda disagrees with my interpretation, and I disagree with them. Unfortunately, they have not given me any policy or guideline based reason to revert my merge. As I see it, their argument breaks down into "I like it" and "it's useful". Why? I Ask (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Redacting again
Hi Ritchie, I noticed you redacted some nasty insults directed at Queen Elizabeth on Panda's talk and wanted to let you know it looks like an edit conflict brought them back and you may want to redact again - if I am misunderstanding what happened and you have already seen this, I apologize for the waste of time. StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
