User talk:Inactive user 20171: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:24, 29 April 2017

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Asilah1981! Thank you for your contributions. I am Malik Shabazz and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous accounts?

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. May I ask if you have had any previous account here?

You have also broken the 1RR rule on 1948 Palestinian exodus Please don´t do that again, or you will be reported and blocked. Huldra (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra Hello, I used to have an account some time back but I edited mainly stuff related to Spanish and Arabic language etymology. Nothing particularly controversial. Why do you ask?

Thank you for your answer, I just wondered. I also warned you above about breaking 1RR on 1948 Palestinian exodus...and now you have done it again. If you don´t self-revert, I will report you. (Also, please don´t mark you edits as m (minor) when they are clearly not, like this one), Huldra (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huldra, I was just wondering could you first explain to me why you reverted my addition in the first place on the basis that it is "out of scope"? The argument seemed totally illogical to me so I just thought it was just further activism and destructive editing. I am not involved in the current Israel-Palestinian debate. It is not something which I waste much thought on, but the period of history regarding the expulsion of minorities from certain countries interests me for a number of reasons and I have recently discovered there is a deliberate attempt to distort history throughout wikipedia for reasons related to the modern conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. This has evidently upset me, since I have a lot of faith in wikipedia and its model. I was just curious on your rationale. Thank you.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Wlglunight93" sound familiar to you? Just "wondering".TMCk (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. It does not sound familiar to me and I don't use sockpuppets, TMCk. You are welcome to "wonder" as much as you like though.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

You have been reported on WP:AE, Huldra (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the WP:AE complaint is that you are warned to observe the WP:1RR rule on ARBPIA articles. Newcomers are sometimes forgiven when (as in this case) they overstep for the first time. Please also be aware that the topic of Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries is very controversial. It is expected that everyone will keep their edits, talk page comments and edit summaries neutral. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to EdJohnston: Asilah1981: you have just broken 1RR on 1948 Palestinian exodus. Please self -revert, or you will get reported. Huldra (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, I have not reverted any edit on that page, simply added 3 sources as required. I do note you are quick to immediately revert any edit I make and enjoy harassing me. Please don't. And assume good faith in my edits before automatically reverting them. Not sure what you mean by "Note to EdJohnston".... Asilah1981 (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impressed

Just a quick note to say that I am very impressed with the quality and lucidity of your talk comments at the Jewish exodus article. This is exactly the type of thoughtful dialogue that these difficult articles need if they are to progress. I am thinking through each of your points and will respond in the next day or so. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Oncenawhile. That is very encouraging and kind of you. Am travelling (in Berlin at the moment), but look forward to your thoughts when I get back. Asilah1981 (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asilah, I have been travelling too but should be able to reply shortly. I note you've proposed a few other edits to the article in the meantime - I look forward to discussing those too. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oncenawhile Hi, good to have you back. Yes, I have done a few edits but if you look carefully at edit history, most of major changes are not my doing" Asilah1981 (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of neutrality at 1948 Palestinian exodus

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

In my warning of November 30, issued as the result of an WP:AE complaint, I noted that It is expected that everyone will keep their edits, talk page comments and edit summaries neutral. You don't seem to be taking this advice. In a recent edit at 1948 Palestinian exodus you referred to the previous edit as "antisemitic garbage". You also left a message for RolandR on an I/P issue that qualifies to be removed as a personal attack ('insane level of ignorance'). These breaches of neutrality seem to continue the trend noted in the AE complaint of using aggressive edit summaries ('Removing creeping (and creepy) POV censorship by user Onceinawhile’'). I'm issuing a block of three days in enforcement of WP:ARBPIA. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well EdJohnston,if someone introduces anti-semitic/racist garbage on wikipedia, it only makes sense that I am honest about the reasons for which I am reverting it. If you want, you can provide me with a list of euphemisms in my edit descriptions so that you stop blocking me? I don't know the terminology, any advice is welcome.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors shouldn't need lessons on how to avoid personal attacks. Do you think 'garbage' is a neutral term? EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way was my edit antisemitic or racist? It reported actions of the state of Israel, with citations from the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Ynet and other reputable sources. There are countless more reliable sources attesting to same facts. This may be uncomfortable reading, but it is hardly garbage. If you think that, by noting this in the article, I am acting in a racist or disruptive manner, then feel free to report me to the relevant noticeboard. But please keep your abuse and personal attacks away from my talkpage. RolandR (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston and User:RolandR that edit is made in a conjunction of bad faith and ignorance of the plight of the jews in Iraq between the 30s and 60s and of course purposefully misconstruing and giving ridiculously undue weight to this obscure and controversial episode of the synagogue bombings to cast doubt over pogroms and thousands of deaths which arent even allowed to be mentioned in the same paragraph! All we know for sure of this episode is that 2 jews were promptly arrested and executed for a "zionist plot". This is proof of what exactly?? How is this in scope? I will wait for my block to end, avoid pointing out these multiple incidents of historical revisionism/denialism akin to racism on wikipedia, and continue to ensure history is not buried by lies and prejudice. I Will have to wait three days though...Asilah1981 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive intervention in Morisco expulsion

I won't say anything that is apparent in this section and that can be naturally gathered from your destructive intervention here and the article history, you discredit yourself by pushing your POV through, skipping all collaboration and WP rules and policies, you are out of control, and you are wasting my time, and that of other good editors. Your attitude says it all. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki LL All I ask you is not to delete or censor sources or sourced statements on the basis that you dislike them. As stated, this should be taken to RFC.In the meantime, these should not be removed without valid reason. Thank you. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I further posted on the above Morisco talk page. Everything, your edits and your attitude, as well as who has done what, is in the history record, so nothing more to add. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lets leave it for RFC, I see most of us involved in this edit conflict are not impressed by your arguments or your behavior.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeting case open

You are on your right to make your point in the ongoing sockpuppeting investigation, feel free to use it. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spaniards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Influences on the Spanish language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page African (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Romani people, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Please read the sources carefully before removing content. See this source which states precisely what you claim none of the sources say. Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votación sobre mapas

Buenas, compañera.

Te solicito que votes en la discusión de los artículos de Basque Country (autonomous community) y Valencian Community para elegir el mapa localizador de ambas comunidades autónomas, apoyando el tipo standar para todas las regiones del país. Algunos usuarios nacionalistas o abiertamente independentistas quieren añadir un mapa sesgado en el que no aparece todo el país (en el caso de Euskadi) o que aparece como si fuese una nación de la Unión Europea (en el caso de la Comunidad Valenciana). Esto es inadmisible.

Te pido que añadas "support" y tu firma en la opción Satesclop's red map. Mil gracias por adelantado. Satesclop 03:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction enforcement

You are now subject to a sanction enforcement request here. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up Iñaki LL. Much appreciated. I think I will pass this time. Asilah1981 (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Iñaki LL. I hope you are doing well and all of your efforts have a positive impact on the Wikipedia project. If you don't mind me saying, I do suggest a slightly more content-focused rather than user-focused approach to your engagement here. Wikipedia is a democratic project built on collaborating and debating and coming to agreements with people you disagree with or who may not share your take on things. I think in the long-run it is a more positive approach than attempting to eliminate them from the project. I hope my advice has been of some use to you. Asilah1981 (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

My opinion is that an article about a feature of an umbrella term citing sources not dealing explicitly with it is by default at the wrong side of the SYNTH/OR line. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding this I don't have a deep knowledge of the fair use exception in en:wiki. but do you think the extended use of a fair use file (a map) in several pages (rather than in one page) complies with the rationale behind the fair use policy? Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asqueladd I reverted that editor who seems to have mental problems. He has some issue with the AEMET climatic map. See here... some rambling about climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Official_K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification_of_Spain_maded_by_AEMET.png&diff=768131403&oldid=768121796

I think I need to play Devil's Advocate a bit: The whole fair use rationale for this file seems dubious to me. Inclusion in more than "Climate of the Iberian Peninsula"/"Climate of Spain" seems pushing the limits to me. I neither agree with using a map as WORD OF GOD in order to counter (more recent) actual station data which is what TechnicianGB has being doing. Btw, I partially undid you here. I think we can agree that is not minimal use rationale at all.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but I'm not pushing for its inclusion anywhere except in those two articles. It can be used as a source though. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what you want to source. There are X1, X2, X3 types of climate in Andalusia: Yes, why not. This X average rain/temperature monthly data from the 1981-2010 period puts Valencia under a Y1 climate according to this criteria Y2. but according to this map for the 1971-2000 period, the WORD OF GOD, made by the most authoritative source ever (accidentally accidentally shares the same source with the monthly averages), that's wrong: Not so much.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AsqueladdI swear I don't understand what you are talking about. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bump?

I didn't want to reopen the convo here but I'm also interested in the matter, if you want to follow up please email me, I'm also concerned with the polarization of these articles.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monochrome I answered you on the article talk page. Its no big deal, just some thoughts I had on this topic - I don't want to get involved in actually editing the article. Btw, I forgot how to email people on wikipedia, I'm not really much of an expert. :-)Asilah1981 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilah1981: click here--Monochrome_Monitor 17:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Catalan Countries

Hi, Asilah. I've opened an RfC at Talk:Catalan Countries on the wording of the opening sentence. Can I ask you not to revert back to the disputed version until we see what way it goes? Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

In case you miss it at the article talk page, I will repeat here: I advise you to retract this insinuation of meatpuppetry, which is a personal attack on a participant with no history of input into the topic or of interaction with other participants. That kind of behaviour will see you return to ANI pretty quickly. Scolaire (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the wrong term. I meant it in the context of jumping to calling for outside opinions through an RfC before sources (or even arguments) could be debated which seemed to me like trying to abort meaningful discussion. Normally RfCs occur where there is enough context provided to outside editors to comment, not before.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said here, there has been discussion going on ever since you made that first edit in September last year. I make it ten thousand words, from Talk:Catalan Countries#Pro-Spanish? down to just before I opened the RfC. Was it "meaningful" discussion? Some of it was, much of it was anything but! And incidentally, you left the discussion at Christmas and didn't bother to return to it before you made your provocative edit a few days ago. There was no reason to believe that another round of the same was going to produce a definitive result. Input from outside the small circle of belligerents was needed. That's what an RfC is for.

I understand better why you wrote "as per WP:MEATPUPPET". I still think you should remove it, though. It's still inappropriate, and it still comes across as a personal attack. If you didn't want to just chop it you could change it to "per WP:RFC". If you're willing to do that I'll remove my comment from underneath it. Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I did so. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I removed my comment. Scolaire (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Copied from the article talk page:

Please stop this guerrilla-type edit-warring at Catalan Countries. There is currently a Request for comment in progress as to whether the first sentence of the article should say that "Catalan Countries" is only used by Catalan nationalists. As of now, only one contributor – you – has voted in favour. There is at this moment a clear and unambiguous consensus against it. If there is a rush of votes in favour of the addition before the RfC is closed, then the sentence will be changed in due course. Until then, edit-warring to replace your wording is not only against the spirit of RfCs, it is totally against consensus as well.

The term "Catalan Countries" – whether or not it is used exclusively by Catalan nationalists, and whether or not it is enclosed in scare quotes – may be used (i.e. sometimes is used) in a narrower sense for Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands. That is all that the first part of the second sentence of the lead says. It makes no comment on the nature or validity or morality of the term that may be used for those three territories. Your preferred wording, "It encompasses the Spanish regions of Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands", "It includes the Spanish regions of Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands" or "used for the Spanish regions of Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands" says the same, except it is more ambiguous, saying it is those three regions, but it also includes the others (Roussilon, Andorra etc.) The three sources you linked to verify the fact that it may be used for those three, a fact that you don't appear to dispute. So where's the problem?

Meanwhile, You have avoided commenting on the nine sources that I listed at the top of the RfC. How many, and which, authors of those books, articles and theses can be shown to not only be Catalan nationalists, but to belong to "a certain sector" of Catalan nationalism? How many, and which, used "Catalan Countries" in a way that obviously espoused Catalan nationalism and Catalan expansionism? I repeat, the majority of those authors are respected academics, some belonging to British universities, and some are not Catalan at all. If the term is verifiably used by reliable sources in a way that doesn't promote Catalan nationalism by people who are not Catalan nationalist activists, then it is verifiably not used only by Catalan nationalists, never mind "some sectors" of them. One sentence by one anonymous hack on the BBC website does not trump multiple academic sources.

Also, please stop using tendentious comments like "You gotta be kidding me. How long did you think it would take before someone actually read the source" and "you are shooting yourself in the foot". I have never shown less than total respect for you and I don't see why I should not be respected in turn.

Finally, I have already taken this to dispute resolution. A request for comment is a part of dispute resolution. The DRN would not accept a request a request while this in progress. I sincerely hope that, having expressed the desire for dispute resolution, you will accept the outcome of this RfC, and I will ask you again to stop edit-warring while it is in progress. Scolaire (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As regards this – "RfCs are not a vote by drive-by editors. Of course I will take this further" – it suggests that you completely misunderstand the nature of dispute resolution, and the purpose of RFC. From Wikipedia:Dispute resolution: "Request for comment (RfC) is a process to request community-wide input on article content. RfCs can be used when there is a content-related dispute, or simply to get input from other editors before making a change." Note the phrase "community-wide input'". Participants in an RfC are not "drive-by editors". They are volunteers with no involvement with the topic who offer an opinion based on their reading of the article and the arguments on the talk page. They represent the Wikipedia community. When an RfC is closed the result (based on the arguments advanced as well as on the number of people supporting each position) and the summary of the closer constitute the consensus of the Wikipedia community. If, contrary to all my expectations, the result is that "used by some sectors of Catalan nationalism" be added to the first sentence, then I will accept that as the consensus of the community and allow that phrase to remain indefinitely. I only ask that you respect Wikipedia policy and make a similar commitment. Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Your recent editing history at Catalan Countries 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. W C M_email 07:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 158: / Line 158: @@
 As regards [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catalan_Countries&diff=next&oldid=777485577 this] – "RfCs are not a vote by drive-by editors. Of course I will take this further" – it suggests that you completely misunderstand the nature of dispute resolution, and the purpose of RFC. From [[WP:CONTENTDISPUTE|Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]: "Request for comment (RfC) is a process to request community-wide input on article content. RfCs can be used when there is a content-related dispute, or simply to get input from other editors before making a change." Note the phrase "''community-wide input'''". Participants in an RfC are not "drive-by editors". They are volunteers with no involvement with the topic who offer an opinion based on their reading of the article and the arguments on the talk page. They represent the ''Wikipedia community''. When an RfC is closed the result (based on the arguments advanced as well as on the number of people supporting each position) and the summary of the closer constitute ''the consensus of the Wikipedia community''. If, contrary to all my expectations, the result is that "used by some sectors of Catalan nationalism" be added to the first sentence, then I will accept that as the consensus of the community and allow that phrase to remain indefinitely. I only ask that you respect Wikipedia policy and make a similar commitment.  [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 17:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
+== April 2017 ==
+{{uw-3rr|Catalan Countries}} <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 07:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)