User talk:Tbf69

WP:USPLACE

Hello, are you aware of WP:USPLACE? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Transport

I think you should check out MV#POST. Looks like you got a lot of cleaning up to do. I suggest you start with the templates first. Masterhatch (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, could you elaborate please?

Also, what do you mean by MV#POST? --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 19:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Oops. That was a typo. Wikipedia:Cleaning up after a move. Masterhatch (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

About the templates, I can't see many templates that need cleaning up. --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 19:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I got the one at Transport in Saskatchewan. There's another one at Transport in Thunder Bay. Always check the what links here when you move an article. Not every link needs to be fixed but its a good idea to at least look for templates. Masterhatch (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There's two templates at Transport in Calgary that now need to be changed. Betcha most of the Canadian related pages you moved have template limks. Please, when you move a page, check the what links here. Fixing templates and looking for double redirects doesn't take long but is important. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Airport line, Perth move

I request that you move this page back to Airport line, Perth. There has previously been a discussion on moving this page to bracket disambiguation at Talk:Airport line, Perth#Requested move 23 November 2021 which was closed as not moved. If you want to move the article to Airport line (Perth), you need to initiate another RM. Steelkamp (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Prime

Please stop edit warring to force your changes to Prime. Please read WP:BRD. You made a bold change to Prime, changing the long-standing target, without discussion. I reverted this change, and now it's up to you to start a discussion and find WP:CONSENSUS for your change. Discussion means a starting a proper discussion on a talk page; an edit summary is not a discussion, and that some editor thanked you is not at all relevant. Lennart97 (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Starting a discussion on the talk page, per WP:DR

Talk:Prime (disambiguation)#Should Prime be a WP:D page (Prime (disambiguation)), or be a redirect to Prime number? --- Tbf69 P • T 08:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that you have been here for over 3 years, and made over 1700 edits, without being aware of Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring, but you don't seem to have ever received a warning about it before, so I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you didn't know. However, if you didn't, then read Wikipedia:Edit war now, because if you continue the edit-war you will almost certainly be blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:EW and I am confident I have not engaged in an edit war.

The clear standard of an edit was is three reverts (WP:3RR), which I made, and didn't go over. --- Tbf69 P • T 22:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

FRom WP:3RR: it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Starting a discussion on the talk page, per WP:DR

Talk:Prime (disambiguation)#Should Prime be a WP:D page (Prime (disambiguation)), or be a redirect to Prime number? --- Tbf69 P • T 08:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Transport vs. Transportation

Hi... on what basis are you claiming "transport" is more common in Canadian English? I would say transport is more common when talking about goods/economy/commerce but in terms of things like moving people, especially transit, we use "public transportATION" here. You are making a lot of page moves without, from what I can see, much backing other than your say-so that transport is the right article title.

For instance, right in the opening of Transport in Canada, there are references to both Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, so not sure what you're basing this sweeping "transport is more common than transportation in Canada" statement on. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't move any articles which didn't need moving.

All of them are designed to follow the standard of "Transport in Xxx" on Wikipedia.

Some of the moves I made:

• Transport in Oslo
• Transport in Vienna
• Transport in Mumbai
• Transport in Sydney (via WP:RMT)

With regards to the Canadian ones, "Transport" is more widely used in Canadian English, especially by the government. See Transport Canada.

Therefore, I believe that using the "Transport in Xxx" for Canadian articles creates a nice balance between WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME, and precedent. --- Tbf69 P • T 08:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

Starting another move request, right after the previous one was SNOW closed and everyone supported keeping the article at the current target, is likely to piss people off. It makes it seem as if you are ignoring consensus, and you'll notice someone linked WP:IDHT in respect to your behavior. Doing stuff like this is a good way to eventually end up at WP:ANI. I'm not threatening to take you there, but I want you to slow down and also check talk page history before making moves or move requests, as sometimes the moves you are proposing have been previously discussed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Thanks for advising me --- Tbf69 P • T 15:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

National Rail Corporation move

Hello. Why did you make this move? The edit summary doesn't explain and it looks wrong. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Natural disambiguation is preferred over brackets. Steelkamp (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Some help please!

Following the result of an RfC (see Template talk:Infobox boxing match#RfC about fighter age), I've added Age to Template:Infobox boxing match, and updated the documentation. However I am hoping to change it to automatically add age to the infobox. I hope to use the source code at User:Tbf69/sandbox/datetest, for this, however I need to use code that will be retrieve the fighters name, date-of-birth and the fight date. I'm not sure how to do this though. --- Tbf69 P • T 15:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This is probably a discussion best held at Template talk:Infobox boxing match (and potentially with a cross-post to WT:WPT and maybe WP:VPT), but my off-the-cuff answer is that I'm not entirely sure what you're asking about. You cannot simply automatically add the in-article age for a page to the template, which means you will have to add the age to the article(s) that need updating. If you can get a list/database of specific pages matching up with specific changes you want made, you could potentially have a bot or AWB user go through and update it, but (as I said this is a quick answer) I think the best thing to do is simply update pages manually. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Israeli power station stubs has been nominated for merging

Category:Israeli power station stubs has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Move of Rail gauge in Australia to Track gauge in Australia

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of Rail gauge in Australia has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion to form the appropriate consensus. Again, please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. Note that such consensus is particularly required before moving a title with incoming links in order to create a disambiguation page at that title.

Consistency of names within a particular area is a good thing but you need to be aware of WP:ENGVAR. Different areas and countries have different ways of referring to them and in Australia the term Rail Gauge is used as can be seen by the formal title of the Royal Commissions and more.

As a broader comment you should make a formal move proposal via WP:RM rather than just moving things without discussion otherwise you will likely be taken to WP:ANI.

Gusfriend (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

About your RfC about city naming

Hi, Tbf69. A comment about your RfC for naming U.S cities: It is your RfC, and of course you are keeping a close eye on it. But you don’t have to reply to everyone, or challenge every person who disagrees with you. Your reply to Donald Albury, after he made his position clear, was simply sarcastic, and your insistence on citing WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE over and over is getting close to WP:Bludgeon. Please sit back and let the discussion proceed without constantly reiterating your position. Thanks. MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Congo brands logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Congo brands logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Kingston upon Hull

Hi Tbf69. I've reverted your page move of Kingston upon Hull. See User_talk:SilkTork#Talk_page_archiving. As this is a long standing name, and is the name used by reliable sources, and is the common name, it would be more appropriate to get consensus for such a move. SilkTork (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@SilkTork: The common name is "Hull". JBW (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

JBW. We can't use "Hull" as that is already used: Hull, so we use the next most common term. Kingston upon Hull is the next most common name, and is the most common name among reliable sources. And Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire, which is what the article was moved to, is not a viable alternative as "Kingston upon Hull" is used more often than "Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire". SilkTork (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please use accurate edit summaries

Your edit summary here was a POV change in the lead that was not accurately summarized as "cleanup". Please use more care. VQuakr (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Page moves

Currently on this talk page there are 6 different posts about page moves without gaining prior consensus which then were reverted. For Kingston upon Hull the talk page already had discussion about the naming indicating that it was likely to be a contested move. I strongly suggest that you start using the process at WP:RSPM rather than making BOLD moves before you are taken to WP:ANI and someone suggests that you are banned from BOLD page moves. Gusfriend (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I second this. I've been trying to guide you because I think you mean well, but if this keeps up you are going to end up sanctioned. Editing isn't a race, and you need to slow down and use the requested move process if there's even a slight chance someone might object. You've been told this many times. Essentially all of the issues you're running into could have been averted if you slowed down and were more careful. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You just duplicated an article

You created Hitachi Rail yesterday. What you've done is effectively duplicated Hitachi Rail Italy. Despite the different names, both articles are referring to the same company, and if you had read Talk:Hitachi Rail, you would have seen a link to this discussion in 2021, where moving to Hitachi Rail was proposed but closed as no consensus. The proper thing would have been to open another requested move if you believe the facts have changed such that the move is now appropriate, not barrel ahead as if the move would be uncontested when clearly it wouldn't be. I'm really running out of patience with your continued messing up of articles despite numerous warnings. At this point you are very close to a trip to ANI, which will not end well for you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You'll see that Hitachi Rail is about the Japanese train company. Hitachi Rail Italy is about the subsidiary of Hitachi Rail which was formerly AnsaldoBreda. They are not the same company. --- Tbf69 P • T 15:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

First, if you're going to do a split, you need to change the article rating on the talk page, which you did not do. Second, the Hitachi Rail article was merged into Hitachi in 2010, and BLAR'd again in 2017. Why split it out now? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:CORRECTSPLIT "changing the article rating" isn't necessary. Anyway, I split the article because it seemed like the right thing to do, as Hitachi Rail is a major notable rolling stock manufacturer. --- Tbf69 P • T 16:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel like a split proposal would have been much more appropriate in this instance. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:SPLIT: If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors can be bold and carry out the split. - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 09:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Even then, you're generally better off opening a discussion and gaining consensus, especially for a previously contentious article. I'm not against being bold, but Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, after all. Just because a policy or guideline says that discussion might not be required in a situation doesn't mean it's not optimal. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

When you convert an page from a redirect into a full article, you need to change the rating so it doesn't remain as "redirect". That's unambiguous. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Slow down

Hello. I can see you've been editing here regularly for the last two and a half months. I can also see that your user talk page, and Archive 1, are filled with various editors complaining about a variety of your edits and asking you to slow down. I haven't looked into the details of those complaints, but it's unusual for a new editor to get so many complaints from so many different editors about so many different edits (copyright, moves, edit warring, canvassing, you name it).

Today, you started your fourth concurrent broad RFC in the past month: 1, 2, 3, 4. Some editors in these RFCs are complaining about your failure to follow WP:RFC, e.g. WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCBRIEF. In the 4th RFC, you created a new naming convention page and proposed its adoption, apparently without discussing it anywhere first. I've never seen an editor with less than 3 months tenure start a new naming convention page before.

In sum: you're wasting a lot of people's time by doing things that you aren't really ready to do, like bold page moves and launching multiple RFCs. Generally speaking, editors don't launch multiple RFCs at the same time, because RFCs are expensive, and we need to be careful about how we use community resources. Some might start two RFCs in a month... but 4? That's excessive. I am the umpteenth editor to come by your talk page and ask you to stop/slow down what you're doing. Please heed these requests. Please don't launch any more RFCs until you have more RFC participation experience, and until you understand WP:RFC, including WP:RFCBEFORE, etc. Don't launch policy RFCs until you have experience launching smaller, non-policy RFCs with success. Don't propose entirely new policies until you have experience launching policy RFCs with success. The same with bold page moves: don't do those until you have a lot of experience participating in WP:RMs and you know how page moves work.

We don't have any formal rules or technical barriers that prevent new editors from launching RFCs and such, but 99% of editors have the common sense not to launch multiple policy RFCs in their first few months of editing. Please, recognize you're new, start slow, build your way up slowly. Levivich (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want some evidence that I can use RMs see the ongoing RM at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, I've just closed the WP:SNOW RfC. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You did not close it, you simply deleted the tag. And that gets to the heart of the problem: you're not familiar with these rather complex processes, and it creates extra work for other editors. I happened across this discussion because I was also coming to this talk page to ask you to slow down with the policy-related RfCs. You might also want to consider changing your signature, because the font is too big and the thick red letters are distracting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I closed the WP:SNOW RfC as described in WP:RFCEND.

Secondly, I've changed my signature, as you asked. - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 09:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This was inexplicable. Why would you nominate for GA an article you've never actually made any substantial edits to? I'm not trying to discourage you from the GA process, but you cannot simply perform drive-by nominations on articles you have no involvement in editing, per WP:GAN/I#N1. I want to emphasize editors have been extremely patient with you. If someone took you to ANI right now, it would almost certainly end in sanctions for you. I don't want to have to take you to ANI, and most editors don't enjoy doing so either, but you're making it more and more likely that there's no choice but to do so. You've been told many many times to slow down and not taken these messages to heart. I've been here close to 2 years, and even I have launched exactly one RfC in that time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll second the suggestion that you need to slow down and stop firing off RfCs about things you don't have sufficient experience to be crafting well. WP:Policy writing is hard. It takes years of near-daily immersion in policy-formation processes to do it right, because you have to know pretty much every aspect of every policy and guideline, in interaction with every other policy and guideline, to not accidentally create contradictions, interpretation grey areas, wikilawyerable loopholes, and other problems. If you're not even doing basic stuff like following GAN instructions or using RM properly, you clearly haven't internalized the rule system here well enough to be sensibly proposing changes to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

British Rail userbox

Hello, I've noticed that you've recently made some significant changes to my userbox User:KomradeKalashnikov/Userboxes/British rail. I would greatly appreciate it if you raised any concerns with me before making such significant changes to the content of the userboxes I have made, especially considering the one in question was created on behalf of another user. Thanks in advance! -- KomradeKalashnikov (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@KomradeKalashnikov Sorry about not previously making you aware of the changes. Do you like the changes however? - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 22:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with the changes as they are, and unless user:2006toyotacorrola raises any issues, I'm most likely going to leave it as is. I just wanted to let you know since it was a bit of a surprise for me when I saw the change, and some other users might not take it as well if you change their userboxes that much. -- KomradeKalashnikov (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that user will be raising any issues since they were blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR and haven't edited since they got blocked. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Canelo Álvarez vs. Gennady Golovkin III poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Canelo Álvarez vs. Gennady Golovkin III poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Template change

Hi Tbf69. I noticed that you completely overwrote the template Template:User male without giving any kind of explanation in your edit summary or on the talk page. I've reverted this change, mainly because you deleted the template documentation, which new editors may find useful. Please try to form WP:CONSENSUS in the talk page next time before drastically changing a relatively common template. Thanks – Popo Dameron talk 22:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've re-reverted your change, please do not change such widely used templates without discussion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please pause your disruptive merging of userboxes until the issue is discussed there. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Tbf69, you say on your user page that you are open to trout-slapping. Well:

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I am sure you meant well, but recasting people's user boxes to say something different is rude. You are in effect messing with others' user pages for no reason. (Even where you don't like the picture, your personal preferences don't override others' right to self expression, with the exceptions listed at WP:UPNOT). And it's especially rude to merge user boxes so everyone winds up with your preferred single choice (e.g. Template:User Buses, Template:User Public transit. And it even seems a little hypocritical, from someone whose own user page displays both "This user likes electric locomotives." and "This user supports railway electrification." You're riding roughshod over what people have chosen to say on their user pages. There is absolutely no reason to eliminate "duplication" in user boxes. Especially when the "duplication" between "This user takes public transport." (with a picture of the earth from space indicating environmentalism), "This user takes Public Transport because they have to!" (with various pictures of country and region-specific buses) and "This user uses public transit" with a b/w picture of an NYC subway train is in large part your own over-simplification. (IMO there's also an accessibility issue with the contrast in Template:User Public transit.) Someone has suggested at AN/I that your newly-created guideline, Wikipedia:Merging userboxes, should be nominated for deletion. You're the only editor there. Would you consider tagging it yourself for deletion, WP:G7? Yngvadottir (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you indefinitely because, in my opinion, you have not demonstrated sufficient competence to be editing Wikipedia. Your merging of userboxes based on a pseudo-guideline you created yourself is nothing short of disruptive and ample grounds for a block in and of itself, but your talk page is littered with people complaining about your edits. You have started drive-by RfCs on subjects you have no involvement in, RMs where you lack an understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines, a GA nomination for an article you've never edited, and all sorts of other tinkering with internal things that don't need to be changed and that you don't understand. Note that I started typing this before your reply at ANI, but that reply gives me no confidence that you understand the issues that multiple editors are raising with your edits and in fact suggests that you intend to continue making edits you've been told unequivocally are disruptive.

To be unblocked, you will need to convince the community that you understand the issues with your edits, that you are capable of editing in a way that is not disruptive and does not waste other editors' time, and that you intend to make unambiguously helpful edits (preferably to articles rather than internal processes). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

[1] I have around 5.1% deleted edits. - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 10:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Block

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Tbf69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is inappropriate, considering that the "behaviour" which got me blocked is still under discussion. - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 10:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This block is inappropriate, considering that the "behaviour" which got me blocked is still [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Tbf69_mass_merging_Userboxen_and_other_issues|under discussion]]. - <span style="color:#0080FF">'''''Tbf69'''''</span> [[User:Tbf69|🛈]] [[User talk:Tbf69|🗩]] 10:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=This block is inappropriate, considering that the "behaviour" which got me blocked is still [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Tbf69_mass_merging_Userboxen_and_other_issues|under discussion]]. - <span style="color:#0080FF">'''''Tbf69'''''</span> [[User:Tbf69|🛈]] [[User talk:Tbf69|🗩]] 10:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=This block is inappropriate, considering that the "behaviour" which got me blocked is still [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Tbf69_mass_merging_Userboxen_and_other_issues|under discussion]]. - <span style="color:#0080FF">'''''Tbf69'''''</span> [[User:Tbf69|🛈]] [[User talk:Tbf69|🗩]] 10:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

- Tbf69 🛈 🗩 10:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)