User talk:Ad Orientem

Status:     Online

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Could you please assist with an edit warring (possible) sockpuppet(eer)

Hi :) I recently reported a block dodging sockpuppeteer at SPI and it's sat there gathering dust since :( I recall you warning me about that. <-- aside

So, with the above in mind, I wonder if you might be able to help with what seems to be a set of IPs being used by the same person, making repeated reverts to multiple music subject pages, to get what they want. I first became aware that there might be a problem when I saw Binksternet leave this user warning with the summary Warning: Usage of multiple IPs on Havoc (musician); I had already left a message on the IP's talk about their editing on Mos Def.

I looked at 2601:8C:8200:8144:2195:7C79:D92C:ECE3's contribs and the histories of the edited pages, and found poor Binksternet apparently battling a set of IPs over all kinds of changes on various pages.

I got involved on a few of the affected pages; on Sheck Wes, Mos Def and André 3000, but there are so many IPs and pages involved – if this a case of sockpuppetry, I think it needs less foggy eyes (it's midnight here) than mine.

I left a warning for edit warring at User talk:2601:8C:8200:8144:2195:7C79:D92C:ECE3 for their 3RR violation on André 3000, but am very tired now. Sorry to dump all this on you like this, but the official channels require a little more wakefulness than I have right now. Cheers. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Checking... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Range blocked 2601:8C:8200:8144:0:0:0:0/64 x 1 week for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Binksternet -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow! You're efficient :) Thanks for taking this on in this manner. Have a good day/night Ad Orientem :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

NP. Good night. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. Hope this finds you well. It appears that the same IP editor is back at it from at least this IP – Special:Contributions/‎173.49.62.225. They have just edited André 3000 and Mos Def again in a familiar pattern. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Checking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again Ad Orientem. I noticed Binksternet had words with that IP in October 2018 about using multiple IPs. Apparently very persistent. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

MaranoFan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi there Ad Orientem. I have never encountered this user before in all my years on here. The user is displaying WP:OWN on Mad Love (Mabel song) and has been harassing me ever since I started improving the article as it appears the user wants to do everything on his own in hope of nominating it to be a good article.

Here is a timeline of the behaviour:

• It starts with this petty and unnecessary edit with the following edit summary: "need for this, Coolmarc. People can just click the linked article if they want to know if it’s a magazine, website or newspaper. And since I’m sure you know DIY is a magazine, people can’t "say" things in it, they "write".
• The user used a PR description as a review. I removed it and the user reverts with this over the top edit summary "What is your basis for that assumption? Nowhere on the link does it state it’s a press release. Do not remove this again without discussing it on the talk page. WP:BRD"
• Then the user comes and attacks me on my talk page before I even get to give them the a link to the press release which they could have easily Googled before reverting. I found what they said to me on my talk page very telling "Stop removing content from the Reception section without any valid arguments. Nowhere does it say that the DIY review is a press release. Actually, the whole makeover you gave to the Reception section was completely unnecessary. You made it harder to read. Please calm down, thanks."
• After working on the article in my sandbox to avoid further conflict with the user, I expand the article and my expansion is almost entirely reverted through a series of edits by the user.
• Then the user harasses me on my talk page again with this meltdown "Just making it clear that if this article is GA nominated, I shall be added as a co-nominator. If you’re trying to WP:GAME the authorship system by rearranging content that I have originally written, just so you can nominate it alone, I’m gonna involve an admin. Regards..... Nevermind, just had a better read of the article and you did add some new content. But keep in mind about the GA co-nomination thing, I have the talk page watchlisted. Moving content, other people added to the Reception section, to Composition, does not mean you added it in the first place. It might game the algorithm but it won't fool people."

I have now reverted the user on the article as my expansion was definitely an improvement on what it was, but I'm sure they are going to revert it back to their version and look for something to cause more drama to chase me away from their article. I have had patience and been completely civil with this user up until this point but now I have had enough and they have gone too far. CoolMarc 06:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I have started a talk page discussion on the talk page, which is what you should have done after being reverted. Stop drumming up drama, thanks. And please discuss the content additions one by one instead of forcing in hefty offtopic content without even using edit summaries to explain it. THAT is WP:OWN behaviour. I completely disagree with your content being an improvement, hence why it was reverted. And yes I’m open about wanting to GA nominate the article, nothing wrong with that. Look at this, this user is refusing to abide by WP:BRD and is blatantly edit warring with no edit summary now.—NØ 06:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh please quit the oblivious act. You know very well what you are doing. CoolMarc 06:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Nah ah, everyone actually knows what you are doing, since looking at your talk page history this is not the first time this has happened. And what you are doing, is creating a completely new version of the article every time someone else accumulates authorship of the current revision. That is textbook definition WP:OWN behaviour.—NØ 06:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You have gone way too far this time for someone who has such an extensive block log. I'm sure this is the reaction you wanted and an admin will be able to look at the diffs and make an informed decision. CoolMarc 06:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a fine admin like AO will certainly make an informed decision. He'll see that you are forcing in your content through edit warring (Policy violation), your last two reverts violate the WP:BRD cycle (another policy violation), and your refusal to discuss the content and resorting to attacking me as a person (Another policy violation). You've made more reverts than me, without leaving a content-related edit summary on any of them. Maybe it's time your block log begins getting some action too.--NØ 06:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opinion of editors blanking pages due to unsourced content?

Hey AO. I've recently come across Koavf blanking large parts of sections and even most of an article while citing WP:SOURCE, in the case of List of awards and nominations received by TLC. Before Koavf started editing: [1] and after: [2]. I don't know who Koavf is citing that policy at, like who on Wikipedia isn't aware WP:V is our most basic policy, but I personally feel uneasy about decimating articles unless it's blatantly false information and formatting and I wanted to know if this is okay to do in your opinion. When it's just unsourced but obviously true I usually just tag it. The article was tagged for refimprove (since mid-2017), but Koavf has seen fit to turn it from 16 KB to basically little more than a stub. Koavf and I have had our differences and I think I know him well enough to know that if i had reverted his removals outright, he'd get quite defensive about removing all unsourced material so I wanted to seek another opinion. Ss112 04:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ss112. In general, unless we are talking about obviously controversial claims of fact or BLP type issues, my usual preference is to tag questionable material with CN tags and give editors a chance to fix it, before redacting large swaths of material. Tagged material can and should be removed after a reasonable period if it remains unsourced. Mass deletions of uncontroversial claims of fact, or claims that as a matter of common sense we know are likely true but simply lack a citation has sometimes been treated as disruptive. I am a big WP:V fan and have occasionally been accused of being hard nosed about it. And yes, I have stubbed some very poorly sourced articles. But only after tagging them and leaving a warning on the talk page that if sourcing didn't improve that I was going to take a meat cleaver to the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hope you both won't mind me joining in; I find "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" in the lead of WP:VERIFY pretty much says it all, and have a soft spot for WP:NOTTRUTH. I can add the claim that e.g. "The Roman Empire had a strong influence on the early cultural development of many modern nations", without the requirement to include a reference; I think it's not wholly controversial by any reasonable measure. If another editor challenges the statement by removal (WP:BRD kicks in) or tagging, the statement then does require a reference. It's nice and simple :) Of course, it would be great if everything was added with a reference off-the-bat, but it would also be nice if it rained chocolate drops in my living room on command, and I'm not expecting either to happen – ever. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 06:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

A Rush of Blood to the Head (coldplay song)

Hi, there is persistent vandalism/disruptive editing on A Rush of Blood to the Head Arcadegirl (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Arcadegirl I've range blocked 2601:484:C103:FFC0:0:0:0:0/64 x 3 months. They have a history of disruptive editing and have been repeatedly blocked before. Hopefully this will put an end to the problem for a while. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of terrorist incidents

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of terrorist incidents. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Hi. I arrived here through WP:REVDELREQUEST in . Recently, a fellow WP:F1 was seriously insulted on the talk page of 2019 Formula One World Championship. I thought that maybe it would be best that the revisions containing these insults were deleted altogether. They are the following: [3], [4], [5], [6].Tvx1 12:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Tvx1  Already done by Diannaa. (Thanks!) -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Tony1's scripts are still causing signifcant issues

Not that I honestly expected him to fix the scripts he runs after you told him to be more careful, but Tony1's "script-assisted fixes" are still changing the date format of pages, for example here on an Italian DJ's article. Italy uses dmy date format on Wikipedia and not mdy, but Tony1's script sees fit to change the {{use dmy dates}} tag to whatever he has set it to, which is a mystery to everybody but him. This is a significant issue considering the amount of articles he edits regularly and runs the script on. God knows how many more thousands of articles he's run it on and changed the format of. Ss112 15:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I realize this is getting tiresome and I've dropped another message on their talk page. Hopefully they will take corrective measures. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Now User:Ss112, I've examined the versions of Prevale (DJ). It was mdy before I edited, which my edit preserved. What is the problem? And if there were anything for me to report to the script manager for fixing, you'd have a better chance of my doing so if your edit-summaries weren't so rude and your message here weren't sarcastic. Be nice.

And one more point: YOU are the editor who mushed up the year (20019), here; you then blame ME for doing that in a later edit summary. Get a grip. Tony (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tony1: No, Prevale was tagged with use dmy dates. The editor who created the page, who does not appear very experienced, used mdy in prose, obviously mistakenly. Your script should not be changing a tag from dmy on an Italian subject's article to mdy. That also doesn't explain why on On My Way (Alan Walker song), about a Norwegian subject's song, that you inserted a date format when the article consistently used dmy, and of course you are ignoring the fact that your script obviously changes or inserts date formats to whatever you want it to be. It, or you, should not be doing that regardless. And don't be dense. I wasn't blaming you for me misspelling 2019 as "20019". I don't want to use scripts, so my point was that I wouldn't be needing to retype the date formats back to dmy in the first damn place if you didn't come onto articles and use scripts to change the date format against what it was previously or what it should be. Ss112 00:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh and I'm not going to fool myself into believing that you would report any issues others have to the "script manager", because as we've seen before from your responses, even before I tagged you in edit summaries, you don't see them as problems. Your response when I commented on a talk page raising the issue of your edits changing em dashes in wikitables to en dashes was basically "I don't see the issue". You obviously don't see the issue here either, but it is a big one because you run your scripts on a tonne of articles and you're changing date formats on them from what they should be. Ss112 00:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Ok. I have no objection to having a discussion on my talk page. But you will both be civil. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't uncivil, last time I looked. But Ss112 is still being rude ("don't be dense"). I'd treat it more seriously if he were civil. I urge him to read the MOS on the guidelines for date formatting among the country-related articles. Neither Norway nor Italy has a mandatory date format on WP, so usually WP:RETAIN applies. I did get that wrong originally on that article, yes; but this is a copy-book case of how to dissolve any semblance of cooperation. Tony (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tony1: Here we go. You are again making excuses (my apparent "incivility" by telling you to not be dense) to continue ignoring this issue so you can continue on your way using scripts that change date formats on articles that already consistently use a different one, like On My Way (Alan Walker song) did. This is ridiculous. This is just an example and clearly not entirely about these two articles. I'm not going to go through every one of your edits and see how many articles you've changed the date format on, but I know there are plenty more from this example. Ss112 01:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, if you won't fix the issue when an admin confronts you about, what will get you to stop using a script to change date formats that others have to fix? ANI? Ss112 01:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't do this on purpose, and they're a tiny percentage of my total script output. You, too, make mistakes, such as the 20019 you blamed me for. BTW, it's not the script's fault: it's my fault for choosing the wrong button. Please tone down your language and be more collegial. I'm sure you do good work on WP. You could extend a little goodwill to others, rather than using the language of anger and confrontation. I'll try to be more careful. Tony (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tony1: I don't appreciate you continually calling me out for my apparent incivility on the issue when I have seen your profanity-laden responses to others that have landed you in hot water (as recently as several months ago) that I assume, like mine on this issue, were borne out of frustration from someone else. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone—if you were a bastion of calm on WP, then I might think you have a point and not see hypocrisy instead. I hesitate to bring this up here, but your to tone others has gotten you blocked for personal attacks, yet you're telling me to "tone it down" and be more "collegial". And yet again, I wasn't blaming you for my misspelling; I just told you I was continuing/clarifying my previous edit summary by saying "fix your script so this doesn't happen again" when I was fixing the errors in my edit from having to revert your script edit manually. Ss112 01:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Good. So can we agree to work together productively? Tony (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Oooh a productive comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tony1: Yes. I just hope you fix (or take steps to fix) the issues raised here and/or be more careful with your scripts, because I don't think you can blame someone for being frustrated if beyond here there are future instances of your edits wholesale changing a consistent date format. Ss112 01:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Not pointing any fingers here, but we should all bear in mind that it's bad form to create unnecessary work for others. Or in other words, if you spill something, clean it up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Warning of Vandalism

	Warning of Vandalism
	I hope you don't make the redirected page or deletion of the page without my permission (as the author of the page) if you do so categorized as acts of Vandalism. Regards Thank You Roseirena (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, Roseirena you cannot just overrule a valid AFD close. You need to go to WP:DRV if you want to challenge it. Further, you don't own any article whether you created it, got it to GA status or otherwise. Also it is not vandalism. Praxidicae (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Roseirena I realize you are new here so I am going to cut you some slack, but the redirection of the page in question was consequence of a community discussion. Please refrain from reverting edits made via community WP:CONSENSUS in the future as such behavior is disruptive. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

A reported sock puppet block evasion is apparently being ignored

Hi there. I previously mentioned in passing (up this page a bit), that I had reported a blocked user for continuing to edit with various IPs; The report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CodyFinke2019 has been sitting there doing nothing (other than being the target of some weird vandalism) since creation, and I've just added yet another IP to the growing list. Could you take a look and maybe poke a clerk or something? Thank you :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Hi. Since you blocked CodyFinke2019, I thought I should now also bring this to your attention. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fred Gandt. I have updated the SPI report. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Howdy (I've been awake too long again); thank you again (and again and again...) I see blockages; I'm sorry; I didn't know Drmies had blocked one already (Aug 8). Centralised discussion *grumble grumble*. I should go to bed. Have a great day/night Ad Orientem :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anitha Karthikeyan

Hi, just a note that the Mirchi Music Awards do seem to be a notable award going by their wikipedia page with reliable sources coverage and televised annually on national TV stations, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Atlantic306 when closing discussions I have to base my decision on WP:CONSENSUS. In this discussion there were three WP:PAG based comments favoring deletion and one favoring keep. In particular I found the last comment persuasive. A notable award is not necessarily a "major award" as understood in many of our notability related guidelines. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

About restoring the vandalism to that IP's talk page. I was trying to undo their edit. 2601:644:877F:F6D8:CC13:6BB7:E0D:52C3 (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion by PeopleEater143

2601:48:8100:6d8a:cf8:858f:a95c:e356. Same topics (New music articles), same snarky edit summaries, IP geolocates to the same area of the US. Ss112 18:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112 Range blocked 2601:48:8100:6D8A:0:0:0:0/64 x 6 months. They have been operating all over this range for a long time despite repeated blocks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright deletion

Hi, this page here Maud Crawford was deleted due to something have to do with copyright. What exactly was the issue, can it be restored? Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. I took a look at the page and large parts of it appear to have been only slightly reworded text from other sources, notably this. That represents a very serious copyright issue. And unfortunately I would not be comfortable restoring the page. This will need to be rewritten from scratch with much closer attention to copyright. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism only..`

[[7]] Every edit, every single one is vandalism. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Stale report?

If you could, please clarify one of the IPs tagged as a stale report. (I reported 197.38.28.156 earlier for persistent vandalism, and he was tagged as a stale report for 24 hours...) James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I misread the date and just blocked them a minute ago. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking them. James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

RevisionDelete request

Hello, looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:109.66.225.99 it appears his latest message is just blatant harassment of Adam9007. Hope to hear a reply from you. --SacredDragonX (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks TPA revoked and edits revdelled. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please help me?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is an IP who (194.32.79.116) thinks that accused me of RainbowSilver (who is another user) just being I shared interests with anyone else. He or she thinks that I am being disruptive. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@ SpinnerLaserz I dropped a note on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I added sources to any articles (this is not considered disruptive) and I always follow the rules. If you had any question about me, let me know. I do brought this up at the Wikipedia:ANI. I believe is that anyone can have the same topic. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@ SpinnerLaserz Thank you for your contributions to the project. If you are concerned about accusations of socking the easiest way to answer is to contact a check user and request that they run a check on you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If, however, I was the same person as RainbowSilver, then it is probably my former account but take a grain of salt. This leads me to a question, can a user abandoned their old account and create a new one (without being disruptive)? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, here is a direct question. Are you RainbowSilver? Yes or no. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Before I answer yes or no. Am I in trouble for something? My edits are in good standing because I add sources. I've checked the RainbowSilver and RainbowSilver2ndBackup accounts, the edits made by the accounts seems to be in good standing other than solved disputes with other users (which ended pretty quite well and peacefully). SpinnerLaserz (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@ SpinnerLaserz As far as I can tell RainbowSilver's last edit was two years ago. There is no rule against adopting a new username as long as you are open about your previous identity. Generally editing from two accounts is strongly discouraged although there are rare cases where it may be allowed. As an example I have a back up account in case I can't access this one. I have never used it. It's fairly clear to me at this point that you are RainbowSilver. If you wish to use this account you should declare the old one on your user talk page and indicate that you have abandoned it. You should also make similar declaration on your previous account's user page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Can we close this ANI immediately? If your statement is true then I probably had to declare it that these accounts are abandoned because I may dislike the names and I wanted to start all over again. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@ SpinnerLaserz Ok. You need to post on your current account user page a list of any previous accounts and a statement that you have abandoned them. You should also post on the user pages of any previous accounts that they are abandoned and that this is your current account. It appears that you have noever been blocked so there should be no issue. I will close the ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I am in good standing, right? Is there is a template dedicated to former user accounts that they owned? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC) SpinnerLaserz (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@ SpinnerLaserz Assuming you have not been indefinitely blocked under a former account, you should be fine. I suggest you read WP:MULTIPLE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

194.32.79.116 removed discussions page and I told him or her that these are very important. Is this fine? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserz: *facepalm* See WP:REMOVE. Anyway, just drop it. 194.32.79.116 (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm moving on right now. Good morning. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I am off to bed shortly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Warning regarding editing

I didn't think a source was necessary since you already have sources on that very page and on the page of Chetniks movement citing the terrorism that they did. You just need to read all the articles of the sources thru. But who am I to know right ? It's easier just to write a talk message to someone withought reading sources of the pages the topic is related to. Don't worry, I will add the source.