User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging/Archive 9
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheTimesAreAChangingProcedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by TheTimesAreAChangingSandstein previously indicated that editing, e.g., Vietnam War was not in violation of the AP2 indef TBAN that he imposed last year. Specifically, he stated that this diff I never appealed the TBAN, but I have little choice but to request that it be modified or reduced now that Sandstein is promulgating an expanded definition of its scope. You could say that any violation, even inadvertent, resets the clock, but I have made an obvious effort to adhere to the ban and the reaching evident in some of MVBW's diffs itself demonstrates this; certainly, there have been no other AE complaints against me since the TBAN was imposed, nor any edits of mine to any articles clearly labelled as subject to DS. Consider the following: 1.) My first AE TBAN was indefinite (rather than lasting for one, three, or six months, etc.), which is unprecedented in my experience on Wikipedia. Its reimposition has significantly limited my editing for more than a year, but if I have unknowingly made constructive edits to articles that could fall within the ban depending on the interpretation of an administrator, that would be an argument for narrowing it, rather than continuing with an open-ended restriction. 2.) The conduct for which I was previously sanctioned at AE was hardly exceptional; if you review the case, you will see that it concerned edit warring at an AP2 article, but I did not violate 3RR and 1RR/consensus required was not in place. While I regret taking the bait, three administrators—GoldenRing, Awilley, and Timotheus Canens—argued that the indef TBAN that Sandstein imposed was too harsh and/or that the other party in the dispute was guilty of (in the words of Timotheus Canens) Statement by SandsteinStatement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TheTimesAreAChangingResult of the appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging
To whoever copies this, please check for and correct formatting issues if at all possible—it's hard for me to do so when I am unable to go into preview mode at AE. Perhaps you could even mention that, since I am appealing two sanctions and could have appealed them both separately, there is really no need for Sandstein to trim my statement when it is barely over 500 words anyway. Thanks in advance,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)}}
Your e-mailThis is in reply to your following e-mail:
Sorry, no. I don't have the time to supervise another editor's contributions edit by edit. You will need to use your own judgment to avoid the US politics topic area. Sandstein 12:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Reminder: Community Insights SurveyShare your experience in this survey Hi TheTimesAreAChanging/Archive 9, There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide. Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages. This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey. Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC) ArbCom 2019 election voter messageA Simple MessageHi it seems like the same person that you tried to stop, is still at it. I just wanted to let you know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Numerosis Gamergirl89 (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Max Abrahms on Russian Apartment BombingsHi there! Apologies for not having reacted in time to the debate of your contribution to the criticism section. But better late than never. I wanted to make my own opinion prior to taking part in the discussion, but haven't been able to access the relevant pages of the book that time. I think you've made a quite important contribution. Also, previously a somewhat similar argument has been made by Yulia Latynina. --Document hippo (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC) Arbitration enforcement topic ban liftedThis is to confirm that, as per your appeal, your topic ban from the US politics topic area is lifted. Sandstein 20:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Truman DoctrineIMO, if you think it should be 'light handed' then you need to keep the reference to supporting Nazi collaborator's, as this is what the US and Britain did in reality, to be historically correct, as their anti-communist rhetoric was so vehement. Im writing a thesis on it as I write, and was there for dates and cannot believe that such Pro-US capitalist rhetoric has made it through so many of the pages relating to 1945 through to 1949 in the Caucuses and Aegean. Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Sega Saturn scheduled for TFAThis is to let you know that Sega Saturn has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 11 May 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 11, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC) PreciousSega politics Thank you for quality articles about computer games such as Sega Saturn, Sonic Lost World and Dreamcast, for adding "sustained contributions" to CIA activities in Syria and Presidency of Jimmy Carter, for service from 2010, and "a natural sympathy for the underdog", - Jake, you are an awesome Wikipedian! You are recipient no. 2398 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Edward S. HermanLet's talk about how to improve the page generally, not just with the edit on the anticipation of the criticisms. You'll have noticed that there was a no violation finding for me, and I really don't want to report you in return (I see from above you've crossed swords many times). I see others are reverting with one or two words as well... but I'm still looking for the first specifics to improve the edit and the article. Happy to work with you! Let's do this. CraigBurley (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC) FYIHi, I've opened this case at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Senor Freebie won't follow WP:BRD and consensus and is making false accusations and given the recent changes it mentions you. regards Mztourist (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
A kitten for you!Just wanted to say hello:) Shrike (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
WhyWHY did you delewte my edit usa and istrael was obviously involved in the syria coup — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:740:8200:72:30F2:8A84:24D6:D458 (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC) What were you expecting to accomplish with your recent edit of E. Howard Hunt? It appears that you left it in worse condition than it was in prior to your edit. For Example, references #3 & 21, the addition of a category that doesn't exist, the removal of photographs, and an edit summary that does not describe your changes. BuffaloBob (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Declaring accomplished scholars as fringeI don't think it's helpful to characterize sources by accomplished scholars as 'fringe' like you did when reverting one of my additions. It's probably more helpful to actually inspect and look at the source before jumping to such a strong conclusion. Famous economist, member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, chief professor of the University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences , [2] Dean of the Marxist Research Institute of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics , director of the Shanghai School of Economics Research Center, doctoral supervisor, ministerial-level cross-century young and middle-aged subject leader people.... source - yet you declared his work "fringe" Fuzhou University Lecturer. Main research directions: History of scientific thought and philosophy of science, Marxist principles and ideological and political education. He has published more than 20 papers in academic journals such as "Communication of Dialectics of Nature", "Theoretical Research of History", "Taiwan Studies", "Red Flag Manuscript" and so on. Personal academic monographs include "Introduction to the History of Chinese Science History" (Science Press, 2010), and participated in the compilation of "Encyclopedia of Minnan Culture" (Fujian People's Publishing House, 2009). sourceShemakesmynosebleed (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC) ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageNotice of edit warring noticeboard discussionHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Old edits. Accopulocrat is back it looks likeI came across the old edits on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anfal_genocide&diff=927213628&oldid=927120307 and it looks like its the same person here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll&diff=991112231&oldid=991111218 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:600:10B:57FC:BD0A:3AAB:5957:DEE1 Just wanted to let you know it looks like try and stop this person when you can. I tried undoing them but it was not letting me hope you can get to this when you can thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:81:C400:DC30:913B:9F46:873E:D893 (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
AccopulocratI came across Accopulocrat on multiple pages can you block him or can some one else? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.244.246.174 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.244.246.174 (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Leeann Tweeden EditI was actually in the middle of reverting/undoing this as well when you beat me to the punch! Not only that, I had actually read his reference, and there was no mention of anything that he had added to the Tweeden entry.Asc85 (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Citation at Spanish FluIn every other case I have come across until this one, the form was {{sfn|Author|year|page}}, usually because if someone goes to the trouble of using harvard referencing for a book, it is because it needs to be cited multiple times at many different pages. And they say it takes ten years to really get the hang of Wikipedia! Make that twenty? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Talk:Racism in the Arab worldStop engaging in personal attacks as you did on Talk:Racism in the Arab world. You need to WP:DISENGAGE either from that page or from interactions with that editor. It is crossed the line into disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC) WW1 death tollThe citation that breaks down the death toll of WW1, claims 6 million to 13 million. But the wikipedia of WW1 only shows 13 million. I only added the 6 million death figure, because that where the link took me. I think it's fair to show the low estimates & high estimates together, since no one truly know exactly how many died. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Question
al-Qaeda articlePlease tell me if I'm missing something in our disagreement regarding retaining the section in question until the RfC concludes. I am keeping an open mind and I will admit it if I have made (another) mistake. Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Your undoing of my "citation needed"-flagging of the discription of Cultural Marixism as an "antisemitic conspiracy theory"I flagged the description of Cultural Marxism as an "antisemitic conspiracy theory" with "citation needed", explaining that "As far as I can tell, none of the three sources listed here (the blogpost “Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment” and the books ”The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right” and “Cultures of Post-War British Fascism”) describes the theory of Cultural Marxism as an "antisemitic theory"." You undid my edit and commented "First source checks out; I'm guessing the others do as well and you are being deliberately disingenuous. Reverted." It doesn't seem like you actually read the source. Its only reference to anti-semitism is the following sentences: "The radical Left, it has to be conceded, has at times also scapegoated émigré intellectuals for their sinister, covert influence. After Bush's invasion of Iraq, the neo-conservatives supposedly inspired by Leo Strauss and his followers were blamed for inspiring a foreign policy that was ultimately in Israel's interest. Here too a certain anti-Semitic subtext could easily creep into the discourse". In short, he is describing the radical leftist critisism of the Iraq war for having an "anti-Semitic subtext". He is clearly not refering to the theory of Cultural Marxism.
Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Efraín Ríos MonttHi. I might need help in dealing with User:78.99.188.30, who's now carried out four edits of the article on Efraín Ríos Montt that have essentially undone most of my recent work, removing large amounts of adequately sourced and referenced material. I've repeatedly asked the user to engage with the discussion in the talk page, so far to no avail. I notice that you reverted this once, and I've reverted it the other times, so that's threatening to turn into a slow-moving edit war. I'd be very grateful if you could keep an eye on this situation and take some action if called for. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello DearWith ref to this report, a new but suspicious account having pro Wahhabism and anti Sufism edit habit has appeared just after the above sock puppet actions. The aggressiveness, edit war and POV pushing in Ahle Hadith and Wahabism articles shows that he/she is experienced one and not new one. I found these behavioral exp pushing reforms of Saudi Arabia , here and use of mobile edits by banned user and by Suspect. The title names of both i.d's Grand Admiral and Shadow warrior are also related to War. Both are from Kerala, an Indian state. ScholarM (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC) I accept your revertMy friend, I only wanted to say that I fully accept your revert, as this is your area of expertise, rather than mine. If I should ever find the relevant reliable and verifiable sources (which were missing in my recent edits on Vietnam and Korea), I will return to add them. I do recall hearing in my youth that the country of South Vietnam was "lost to the north" 2 years after the US signed a peace agreement with North Vietnam. American troops began to evacuate the county, and it was only after most of the US troops had left Vietnam that the country was once again reunited. I find it striking, to say the least, that all the pain and anguish could have been avoided had the American military elite and politicians gone along with John F. Kennedy's wish to disengage from Vietnam.Davidbena (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Review work?Hello I was working on this page Soviet offensive plans controversy I understand now the other page is a Ga page. Could you review the Work I did one the Soviet offensive plans controversy page? just looking for input thanks.Thelostone41 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article. For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done. I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021. Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project. Thanks so much, Sarah Sanbar Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 11:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Cambodia Vietnamese warWhy you revert every my edit たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
First sentence "Wahhabi Islamist"Hi there - I added a section about this on the page's talk page. Please respond there. Rethinkmedia487 (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussionHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: ). Thank you. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC) BlockedI have blocked you for one week for edit warring at Buddhas of Bamiyan and personal attacks. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
TheTimesAreAChanging (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I'm disappointed by Bbb23's trigger-happy action in this case, which did not involve a bright-line violation reported to AN3 (as opposed to edit warring by multiple parties), and which precluded my ability to make a statement in my defense at that forum. I do not deny reverting three times or describing the edits that I reverted as tantamount to vandalism, but the context is unusually salient. TrangaBellam (a recently created apparent single-purpose account by a self-described Per WP:BRD, these challenged WP:BOLD edits to long-standing content require consensus on the talk page before being reinstated, whereas my edits upheld the previous consensus by maintaining the last stable version. Unwilling to accept this, TrangaBellam publicly canvassed a like-minded established editor, Johnbod, to make an additional revert with the following summary: In sum, reverting three times to maintain the status quo in the face of obviously disruptive, vandal-like mass deletions based on denigrating RS and Wikipedia's content policies should not be sanctioned while the actual disruption is rewarded by kneejerk administrator action. (If I had been able to present my evidence at AN3 first, the outcome might well have been somewhat different.) Consider what you're enabling by only sanctioning one side in an edit war, in a particularly disproportionate manner, without waiting for my statement: Among other things, TrangaBellam's insistence that the Time excerpt about the Quran not calling for violence against other religions (which is echoed by many other sources, even at the Buddhas of Bamiyan article itself) is the "Strangest line, I have read in this wiki" and akin to "hoax content" reeks of Islamophobia. Or is pointing that out too much of a "PA" for Bbb23? That said, I have no personal stake in this content that I did not add to an article I only watchlisted due to the recent events in Afghanistan. I'm certainly happy to stand aside and refrain from editing Buddhas of Bamiyan again, if administrators think that that would somehow lessen the disruption to the article. As always, just be mindful to carefully consider all of the underlying facts before making your decision. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason: This is too long for consideration. Please be more succinct in addressing the reason for the block(edit warring and personal attacks). I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
TheTimesAreAChanging (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Per the report at AN3, I was blocked for reinstating long-standing content three times. However, the other party in the edit war removed the long-standing content twice ([1], [2]) and then pinged a like-minded editor to make two additional reverts. That means the reporting party has unclean hands, and the long-standing content from April 2019 should have been retained absent a clear consensus to remove it. (Per my understanding of WP:BRD, removal of long-standing content is a Bold edit, just like adding contentious new content.) The block is punitive and disproportionate, doing nothing to effectively address disruption to the encyclopedia. I provided additional details in the previous request, but 331dot stated it was too long to consider.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC) Decline reason: Please see WP:NOTTHEM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. American ExceptionalismRe: my very simple edit on "Some claim..." 1) The lead section of energy entry generally does not require inline citations; my edit does not require a source when summarizing A sourced item from the article body 2) This is especially true for citations made in subsequent sections 3) The "some claim" issue is addressed in detail in the Origin of the Term section with 4 inline citations 4) Unless you can persuasively counter these items, or cite a Wikipedia sourcing policy violated, I will reinstate my edit, as 1) its true, and 2) I am merely bringing clarity to the lead section that is discussed in detail in the Origins section. As it is, the entry appears stupid, as the lead section makes it seem like absolute fact that Stalin originated the term (he didn't), while the Origins section cites numerous sources countering this claim, including that the first documented use was in 1861. Huskerdru (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Sure, fair enough. See Terminology section, first graf, "The exact term...", citing Zimmer, Ben (September 27, 2013). "Did Stalin Really Coin "American Exceptionalism"?". Slate.com. Also see Origin of the Term section, second graf, "Some claim..." (which is whence I derived my phrasing in the lede), citing Albert Fried, Communism in America: A History in Documents (1997), p. 7., and Pease, Donald E. (2009). The New American Exceptionalism. U of Minnesota Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-8166-2783-7. Huskerdru (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I have. Fried, or course supports the claim that Stalin originated the phrase. I rely on Zimmer and Pease for counter-claims. Fwiw, I agree with you re: contemporary proponents (I am not one) and the concept. This isn't a hill I'll die on; I was attempting to harmonize the lede with existing body content (specifically in Terminology, "Some claim." I won't ultimately argue with preserving the lede language, but, if so, that sentence of the Terminology section should be changed to match the lede. Huskerdru (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Correction... Fried supports the claim that "American Communists" rather than Stalin originated the phrase. Huskerdru (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think your characterization KS reasonable and supported, though it's not what the lede says, which goes back to my original edit to counter the claim in the lede that "The actual phrase "American exceptionalism" was originally coined by the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in 1929..." I'm happy to change the lede to reflect your phrasing, though I suggest you do so, as you did come up with a good intro sentence on the coining of the specific term. My concern was with countering the claim that Stalin coined the phrase, as the lede currently reads. Huskerdru (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Is, not KS...stupid autocorrect Huskerdru (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Awesome, looks great! Thanks for the dialog. Cheers, Huskerdru (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC) List of FaminesHi TheTimesAreAChanging,
Thanks. The discussion with Ermenrich was more about James Bacque IIRC, and we reached an agreement. As to the emu, I wrote to him/her several times (also about the LoF edit) and got no answer, so I presumed it is some electronic reading device. Glad to learn that emu is a person.Cortagravatas (talk) I’m just curious about somethingWhy would mobsters and terrorists have ZERO part in foreign electoral intervention? (199.116.102.120 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)199.116.102.120) ArbCom 2021 Elections voter messageRfC on WSJ Talk PageSorry to bother, but I checked the archives for the previous RfC that you voted in, which ended up being archived without closing. Just wanted to let you know that a newer and more active discussion has arisen again, with new editors being involved. Bill Williams 01:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC) Edit WarYou give no reason for the edit except you disagree? What exactly do you disagree with? Dec212012 (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I added three sentences, one being a direct quote from the living person himself. I’m asking you again to please specify and explain your removing sourced material? The sources I used were The Boston Globe and the living person themselves own quote? I’ve ‘brushed up on’ original research and ask you again, what part of the two page article of original research you feel is not correct? As for your ‘two other users concurring, they used one word in their edit summary, SPIN. I ask you to stop this petty war. Giving a truthful quote, by a living person from a RS is not a reason for those three sentences to be removed. Dec212012 (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Hello, thank you for your recent notice about edit warring. I am new to WP and still learning the ropes and was unaware of the rule. Editorial combat is the farthest from my mind. Looking forward to more amicable times. Thank you again. Moretonian (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC) ThankingI hope you don't mind my "thanking" your edits and comments. It usually means that I have examined the edit or read the comment and largely (or fully!!!) agree. If I really disagree, I'll leave a comment. I appreciate your attention to detail. This shit is pretty complicated at times. A "shotgun" approach doesn't work very well, and your "rifle" aim is pretty good. I can tell that you're not an extremist with their finger on the red button. -- Valjean (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
replying to commentsBeginning a reply with "[username], with respect, you are not parsing [sources]'s statement accurately, probably because English is not your first language." is a bit too cute. ~ cygnis insignis 05:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
|