User talk:BeŻet

Hello BeŻet pl! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gilliam 11:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Username change

I noticed your question at Alison's talk page, and I understand she's fairly bogged down these days. This request can be made at WP:CHU for a faster response. Hope that helps, –xenocidic (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Juliusz Bogdan Deczkowski

The article Juliusz Bogdan Deczkowski was created a little while ago on the English Wikipedia as a somewhat incomprehensible stub. I've touched it up a bit, but all sources are in Polish and we'll need a speaker of that language to get any further with it. I found your name at the Local Embassy, and am wondering if you know of anyone who might be interested in touching up the enwiki version of this article so that it might meet the standard of the version on Polish Wikipedia. Thanks! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Blossom Goodchild

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Blossom Goodchild. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blossom Goodchild (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Possessive

Jobs' is not incorrect, and neither is Jobs's. The decision on the Steve Jobs article was to go with the more widely recommended version for one-syllable names ending in s. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BeŻet. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BeŻet. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. --18:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

1RR vio

You'd do well to self revert, as you've broke the WP:ARBPIA "original author" 1RR restriction with original authorship and revert. Furthermore, using the highly partisan and unreliable Palestine Chronicle (and reprints) for statements in Wikipedia's voice is not acceptable. There is no photo evidence for "settlers storming" or for a "flood". There are photos showing a puddle. Per AP - this is apparently from a nearby Israeli settlement. and The sewage flowed downhill toward Khan al-Ahmar earlier this week, and on Friday was still pooled in a ravine by the West Bank community’s corrugated tin shacks.. AP. Kindly self revert. Icewhiz (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I've quite clearly pointed out your 1RR violation above - you were the sole author of this paragraph - on 2 October. It was removed today for the first time - 13:36, 9 October 2018, and it was restored 14:20, 9 October 2018 less than an hour later. This is a clear and outright violation of WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit - no other editor edited or reverted the sewage content between 2 October and 9 October. Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, BeŻet. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Getting Tajemnica Statuetki to GA

Hi, my name is Jarod (Coin945) and my focus at Wikipedia is on improving articles on obscure video gaming topics. I became fascinated by the Eastern European history of gaming in the early 90s, and worked really hard on Tajemnica Statuetki. As I am unable to speak Polish there are limitations to my work so I was wondering if you'd be willing to head over to the article and copyedit my work? Otherwise would you be able to refer me to anyone who would?

Best regards, Coin945--Coin945 (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 Venezuelan protests

Hi. I was wondering if we could continue the discussion in the protests article. Regards, --Jamez42 (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ----ZiaLater (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Notifying you of discretionary sanctions in effect for articles related to American politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Template:Z33

Per a suggestion, I am reminding you that the above notice applies to the Andy Ngo article and talk page. Springee (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Disagreements

You and I clearly have some disagreements when it comes to the content of articles. However, I would like you to not make attacks against me. I am assuming that you are attempting in good faith to improve Wikipedia, and you simply fail to understand our policies. I would appreciate it if you would make the same assumption about me, and refrain from calling me "dishonest": Also, I'd like to add that "However, I've seen very little to convince me that Jacobin has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is extremely dishonest. [1]. I don't even understand what you mean when you say that. Do you think I'm lying, that I have seen such evidence and I'm choosing to ignore it? Almost every single one of their articles I've read comes at the issue in question with a clear agenda, and the reporters either leave out significant facts that would contradict the point they're trying to make, or they contain false statements. They rely heavily on biased sources and rarely, if ever, seek out comments from people who might disagree with their argument. I've never come across an independent source that argues for Jacobin's reliability, nor any that relies on their reporting for factual claims. If you believe that Jacobin has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, why not gather some evidence to make that case, instead of attacking me personally? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi BeŻet,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

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) 16:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. 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. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi BeŻet,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

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) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

NOCON is policy

Please read WP:NOCON. In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it. Springee (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we have both broken the 1RR rule on the Ngo page. However, your revert of Arkon's removal here [[2]] was the second time you broke 1RR. Arkon hadn't made any prior changes to the page at least in the past few weeks. Thus when then again removed the material I removed you can't claim they weren't discussing it. The rule doesn't require that. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: you broke the 24h revert rule, therefore Arkon, by reverting my change, also broke it. No need to self revert. BeŻet (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't since the bold addition was yours and it was already under discussion. Springee (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: That is incorrect. You've made a change, which was removal of content that has been added before. Moreover, I wasn't the editor who added the part about Islamophobia, which has been there for quite a while. Therefore, you cannot treat your change as a revert, but a change that I've reverted. BeŻet (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This is all incorrect on your part. Please review the sanctions at the top of the talk page. The only reason I didn't report you to AE is my own laziness. Arkon (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: Please have a look at the ongoing discussion where other editors are politely explaining to you that you are in the wrong. Feel free to report the situation, perhaps someone will be able to explain the rules to you. BeŻet (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

One editor offered no explaination what so ever. The other offered a very weak reply. The net result is we still have no consensus but instead of 3 editors calling for removal with you calling to keep we now have 3 calling for removal and 4 calling to keep. That's still a noconsensus and now you can't say there was no discussion. Springee (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: Which 3 people? Only very recently Shinealittlelight joined you saying that those sources are not RS (which is incorrect). Hence, only now, if we let this discussion progress, we can determine if there is consensus or not. BeŻet (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi BeŻet,

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) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Hi. I have noticed and I'm worried that many of your last contributions in the current situation of Bolivia do not accurately reflect the content of the sources provided. To prevent original research and to follow the verifiability policies, I ask you to please be more careful in the future. Best regards and many thanks in advance. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you be more specific please? BeŻet (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Specifically this edit. "Paulo Abrão, who heads the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), said that due to the "massive" number of violations, an external probe would be necessary." is quite different from Bolivia may need outside help to investigate a “massive” number of human rights violations amid post-election violence to ensure findings are seen as credible in the deeply divided country or Normally in these situations ... national institutions aren’t prepared to resolve such a massive grouping of violations of human rights. There are many other cases, but I would have to look for them. The important point is to give more context and to take care when summarizing the information. Again, many thanks. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: How is that different? This is literally what the article states. BeŻet (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Looking at your recent changes, you seem to have some skewed interpretation of what articles say, and then accuse other editors that they do not reflect the sources accurately, while the same could be said about your actions. He literally says what my initial version says. You keep insisting on changing many things in these articles to "soften" them or "obscure" the real message. You can't introduce changes just because you are unhappy with what the sources actually say. BeŻet (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

3RR

I suggest you self revert your last edit, since you have violated the three reverts rule. I also advise you to bear in mind WP:ONUS. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I suggest you stop removing content you don't like without any valid reason. There is no trace of anything that CEPR has said anymore. This is unacceptable behaviour. BeŻet (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I have cited WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK and now WP:ONUS. Even if it was true that I'm not providing an explanation, the only exception to 3RR is vandalism, which is not the case. You should stop accusing other other editors or just "not liking content" (WP:AGF), specially since it seems I'm not the only one that agrees that section in particular should not be included. Once again: I really encourage you to self-revert. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You can't just claim WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK, and then expect everyone to comply. This isn't a golden bullet for you to remove everything you don't like. BeŻet (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anarcho-capitalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Your recent editing history at 2019 Bolivian political crisis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – bradv🍁 13:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks and failure to focus on content

Bezet, I would like to ask you to please remove your uncivil comments that you recently posted to the Andy Ngo page. Specifically you imply I may be a paid editor [[3]] (I am not), that I am willfully lying [[4]] (disagreement with your views is not lying... even if I'm ultimately wrong, it's not the same as lying), and this uncivil comment [[5]]. I get that we don't agree but this needs to be a FOC discussion. If you don't address these comments I will take this to ANI. Springee (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC) @Springee: I did not imply you are paid editor, I said that since I am not getting paid, I am not obliged to reply immediately or participate in discussion frequently. BeŻet (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You didn't say anything about removing the uncivil comments. I will file an ANI if you don't. Springee (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: Me asking you if you know how Wikipedia works after you said I am "posting nonsense" is an uncivil comment? Go ahead, file an ANI and let everyone judge the things you write. BeŻet (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

March 2020

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 - MrX 🖋 13:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Elon Musk

You have put him in Category:Engineers from California and Category:Pioneers of rail transport, which you say he does not belong in. Rathfelder (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

1RR business

Your complaint was quickly dismissed, but I feel it would be helpful to point out that you did not provide any link showing MrX saying, as you claimed, that he could do whatever he wants within 24 hours. It's really important to stick to simple demonstrable facts in Wikipedia discussions, and I hope you'll consider what might have gone wrong time around. Enjoy your editing. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Pings

Apologies for the errant pings I just sent you; a bug while moving around archive pages. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Please self revert

Your BOLD edit to the Andy Ngo page was reverted. Please self revert and take it to the talk page. Springee (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

requested redaction

I request that you remove:

* Site employs controversial bloggers like Andy Ngo ("editor at large") who have in the past posted hoaxes and incorrect information.

which was added in this edit as a BLP violation. We can have a discussion on the talk page if you wish but I think this is fairly straightforward.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)