User talk:Thryduulf

Template:Archive box collapsible

Awards For your help with April 21, 2005 Stubsensor cleanup project you are hereby given the Stubsensor award. I hereby award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your heroic efforts in repairing and repelling the Willy on Wheels vandal — Bratschetalk 5 pillars (KC) This PSY is awarded for being polite, courteous, and extremely helpful to myself and other users, and as such bieng a blessing for good mental health. Awarded by PhatePunk 22:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC) For your excellent contributions to Wikipedia - it is those little things that make all the difference :-) --HappyCamper 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC) I am giving you this banner star for all of your work at WP:RFD - Tideflat (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC) The Redirect Barnstar is hereby awarded to Thryduulf for all the work put into contributing at Redirects for Discussion and maintaining the navigational parts of the project. Quiet background work that very few see, yet it has a great effect on the projects readers! Thanks for your work in the area, Taelus (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC) The Redirect Barnstar is hereby awarded to you, Thryduulf, for closing nearly an entire page of discussions, but more importantly, for all of the other thankless jobs that you do. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC) I'd like to echo these thanks, as I think we are some of the only admins who set foot in RfD these days :P. Thanks for helping with the backlog, all the best. --Taelus (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Fair and Helpful Thank you so much for helping me with an article (I'm a beginner.) I have no idea what I'm doing but you helped to keep my article up after it was deleted. You also checked back up on it when the references were deleted, I just checked and saw you even helped me on listing them too, I wasn't sure how to do that either. Anyway, thank you. :] Ohthegunsofbrixton (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC) The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar For exhibiting rational judgement on a certain list which caused considerable overreaction and worse case scenario concerns. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC) The Redirect Barnstar Thanks for your (re)-explanation of why it [the Selby Wall redirect] was pointing where it was and why it should point to where it's now pointing Tonywalton Talk 00:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC) The Redirect Barnstar I hereby award User:Thryduulf this shiny Redirect Barnstar for their excellent work at WP:RFD. Lenticel (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC) The Technical Barnstar For your unfailing patience and kindness dealing with VisualEditor related problems and the users struggling with them :). (also for the fantastic car analogy). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC) The Original Barnstar I appreciate I already gave you a barnstar for it, but I've just looked at the feedback page for the first time since stepping off my flight, and wow: you deserve another one :). Thanks for all you've done for the VE project thus far. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC) The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar For sterling work above and beyond the call of duty at WP:VE/F. You're always there, logging defects, updating replies and always with politeness and calm. NtheP (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Precious thinking of options Thank you for quality pictures uploaded, for nominating to the news, for taking care of redirects and projects, for helpful proposals and thinking of options ("I can think of at least two options"), - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC) The Real Life Barnstar Yay! You're here at the [Wikimedia UK] office! Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Survey King! You put absolutely hours of work into [the WMUK Members' Survey] and I am so so grateful! Really looking forward to finding out what worked and what didn't and making the results useful to the chapter! Thank you so much! Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC) The Brilliant Idea Barnstar Arbitration Committee cases are inherently complicated matters. That your analysis of the case resulted in a suggestion widely accepted by participants and arbitrators alike, demonstrates it to be a brilliant idea. Congratulations! MarshalN20 | Talk 14:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC) The Barnstar of Diplomacy Y'know what... ...Here's a barnstar. Consider this a token of my appreciation, on behalf of the project as a whole, for your contributions to this RfC, and for summarising a horribly complicated discussion into something that people could understand (and which slightly lessened my headache in closing it!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC) The Special Barnstar Thanks for the MASSIVE amount of work and time you put into the 2013 Membership Survey. It's really excellent and I hope its something [WMUK] builds on :-) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC) The Real Life Barnstar Thank you very much for all your hard work on Wikipedia Takes UCL last week. It was an event from which we've taken many lessons and I believe that a good number of people had a very positive experience from it thanks to you and the team you managed to coordinate. Here's to the next one! ToniSant (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC) The Real Life Barnstar Chris, I'm indebted to you for your help at the Marjon event. Gil asked me to pass on her thanks in particular for your "excellent and clear explanations of the technical aspects of copyright". Next time I'm looking for helpers for an event, you'll be top of my list. Thanks again, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC) The Photographer's Barnstar For your extra effort in providing photos for an article that another Wikipedian is working on. Exemplary teamwork! w.carter-Talk 17:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC) 'The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar I've got to say, I've seen your comments about the place and you seem one of the more "rational observers" (if you'll pardon the pun) on the site. I think you have a good head on your shoulders. I wish others were like you! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC) The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar Illegitimi non carborundum 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC) The Redirect Barnstar Your diligent work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement is duly recognized and greatly appreciated. You are truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia, and we hope you continue to enjoy your improvement of this awesome encyclopedia! For your well-thought, detailed, and infuriatingly reasonable close here. Well done once again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC) The Admin's Barnstar Congratulations making WP:EFH legit. JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC) The Citation Barnstar For your excellent work on Sean Hughes' biography. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC) The Citation Barnstar For your hard work in the effort to get Robbie Coltrane to RD quality when it appeared doomed to not be included on quality grounds from the start; I award you this barnstar of citations! You recognized how important it was to get Hagrid onto RD owing to the emotional response of people to the beloved actor’s death (even the oppose votes were visibly upset and reluctant about their vote), so you worked hard to make it happen to the glee of the fellow Wikipedians. Well Done! :) DrewieStewie (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC) The Minor Barnstar Hello! While it may be small in the grand scheme of things, I wanted to thank you for drafting the disambiguation page at National and University Library. When I was looking into the title before the RfD, I saw a lot of different possibilities for targets and wasn't sure how to go about compiling them all into one place. It looked quite daunting to me, and to that end, thank you for initiating the first draft of it! (As well as the rest of your assistance at RfD, it is greatly appreciated.) Utopes (talk / cont) 20:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC) The Redirect Barnstar Thank you for all the work that you do at RfD. Your comments have changed my mind and helped to educate me on numerous occasions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) The Citation Barnstar For successfully dredging up a comprehensive and surprisingly compelling source list on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avon_Safety_Wheel BrigadierG (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Arb process query

I see you and S Marshall editing the Workshop page at the Medicine arb; does the Workshop run concurrently with the evidence phase? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The workshop phase opens at the same time as the evidence phase but closes later. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks ... did not realize that. So my next question, if you will entertain me, is where to best address rebuttals. James has implicated me for "harassment" via pings in his evidence, although he had never asked me to stop pinging him until 31 March, and he had an acknowledgement from me within 13 minutes. Do I use up more KB on the evidence page to rebut that, or do I add that to the Workshop page under the Analysis of evidence section? The case pages are going to get very long here, so I want to be sure I'm using them optimally ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Basic rebuttal is best in your evidence section, especially as you don't have a word limit to worry about on this case. The analysis of evidence is better for longer form examination of the evidence and seeing how it stands up to scrutiny, contrasting different evidences, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I am here to abuse of your hospitality and experience :) I have put up my first piece of evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Bluerasberry. Because it will be so lengthy due to the number of editors and issues to be covered, I need to make sure my evidence is tightly focused and helpful towards formulating remedies. Could I entice you to add a reader's critique of my first submission, to guide the rest of my evidence? Keep in mind that each piece I present in this initial submission will be tied to a pattern of behavior repeated across other topics by other editors. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I'll take a look, but it might be a couple of hours before I get chance (I'm going to need to start cooking soon and I've some stuff to do before then!) Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

No hurry, and no need to look today ... I have LOTS of work to do still on the rest of my evidence. Enjoy your day, however you celebrate. If you can remember, please ping me when you respond here, since I'm kinda busy :) Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Based on a quick read that all looks good. You do though have what looks to be a reference to a footnote after the statement "26 editors" but you haven't included the footnote. I expect you are intending to add that with a later addition to your evidence, but I suggest it would be better to include it now. This makes it clear what you are referring to when people read this set of evidence and you wont have to spend energy defending it if someone replies before you do add it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It was there, but buried at bottom, so I moved it up. Thank you SO much. You don't find it too much or tedious reading? I have just added my preamble, upon which all other evidence (to be submitted) will be based, in case you also have time to look at that: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#WPMED tension is long-standing. I would have preferred to submit all of my evidence at once, so it will all hang together, but am concerned that the Workshop page is already becoming overburdened with proposals that will not address the core dispute. Hence, I have put up this partial .. but full evidence will build on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

At arbcom being tedious and overinclusive is better than missing something important. There is a reason only mad people read cases for fun! Don't worry about overburdening the workshop, the arbs/clerks will step in if there is anything disruptive or stuff is off topic. However don't duplicate for the sake of making a complete decision, e.g. if you want to suggest a remedy based on a finding of fact someone else has posted, just post the remedy and note in your comments that it is supported by User:Examples's proposed FoF "BadEditor did Foo". Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I expect one editor I have tangled with before to complain about (my) length, and I tend towards verbosity (understatement), so want to be sure what I have added so far is concise, succinct, on point. But then, since I am adding piecemeal, that could be hard to determine :) I have added several things to the Workshop page which will become more clear as I add evidence. This thing has more legs than an octopus. Thanks for your guidance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, a process suggestion, that you may be able to give me feedback on. The simultaneous opening of the Evidence and Workshop pages impedes both, as a) editors gathering evidence get sidetracked by cockamaney Workshop proposals from people who have not yet seen any evidence, and b) the Workshop page gets bogged down by those same proposals. It would make more sense to me if the Workshop page opened a week after the Evidence page, still with overlapping time frame. I have had to sidetrack and put up evidence piecemeal so that we don't see a gynormous irrelevant bunch of Workshop proposals based on, as yet, no evidence. Backwards! (And, in my search for diffs, at the rate I am finding new and more concerning evidence, being sidetracked into the Workshop page could add a week to the Evidence phase, as I'm unsure if I will make it on time now.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's an idea that deserves more thought. I can see the merits in your argument (although you don't have to contribute to the workshop and you can just ignore proposals that clearly wont go anywhere), but it would disadvantage someone who posts evidence and makes their suggestions on the workshop in the first couple of days and then doesn't (possibly can't) return to the case after that, and requiring evidence to be presented before commenting on the workshop would remove the opportunity from comment by uninvolved editors (sometimes helpful, sometimes unhelpful). Its not something I can recall there being significant discussion about (Risker is a better arbitration historian than I am though) so might be worth suggesting (probably after this case is done) on the arbitration talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that darn Risker! You can't trust her for anything :) :) (I still owe her a stay-at-home greeting on another page, but have been a wee bit busy.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Just letting you know that your name popped up incidentally in my evidence here. Just processing through intersecting contribs ... finding more examples than I know what to do with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks. By the way, are you aware of WP:AN#Review of RfC close by User:Cunard? I'm not plugged in to the case enough to know if that is relevant or not. Thryduulf (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't yet read his evidence carefully, but I believe that is the instance S Marshall refers to in evidence? I avoid e-cigs like the plague, because it is a topic (like many other medical topics) that was historically dominated by the bully brigade and unhelpful editor interaction; I am not up on the specifics, but what is referred to in Version 1 vs Version 2 there is totally clear to me at first glance. As you can see, I have had to put up voluminous amounts of diffs to evidence the trend being referenced in that discussion by S Marshall-- how does one show trends without years worth of diffs?

There are three issues affecting RFCs in medical editing: a) one editor tries to do too much, all the time, and doesn't often fully engage or understand all discussions, such that speed of editing seriously impedes discussion, leading to !voting-style RFCs often poorly formed; b) !voting by other editors who almost never engage or fully understand discussions reinforces incomplete understanding of the underlying conflicts or issues to be resolved, so that issues fester; and c) we don't know how to formulate RFCs, yet rely on them to the detriment of actual discussion. I put up one of the worst RFCs ever last December, after discussion had stalled, and only understood well into the RFC why it was bad and just how bad it was, then tried to remedy that mid-stream, and made a worse mess of the mess. The RFC was so poorly formed that the inevitable conclusion was no consensus, leading to WhatamIdoing imploring us all to hold off on any more RFCs, leading to the unresolved dispute discussion being autoarchived by the bot (while we were all busy on the drug pricing RFC), leading to the removal of the dispute tag because there was no "active discussion" on talk (wikilawyering?), leading to another edit war pending yet another RFC ... yada, yada, lather-rinse-repeat.

Factor a) (one editor editing too fast) worsens over time as long-term, committed, knowledgeable editors have simply backed off from the tactics employed on contentious articles like e-cigs, and avoid WPMED as much as possible. End result of tactics used at places like e-cigs: not enough medical editors engaging, as long-time, founding, core contributors have been alienated. The idea that it is an "ego battle" is off; it is a matter of those who adhere to policy versus those who reject policy, and that is somewhat divided along the lines of old-timers vs relative newcomers, many of whom model their interactions on the bully brigade.

MOST of the problems affecting WPMED can be resolved by a) finding a way to get one editor to slow down, digest, engage, understand, discuss; b) instituting some sort of independent approval needed before RFCs are launched; and c) stopping the coordinated !voting on RFCs. With some (not all) of the bully brigade finally being addressed by arbitration actions, the prognosis for WPMED is not as bad as it might seem from the current level of tension. And there are editors who can help rebuild and heal if the underlying issues are dealt with. The outlook is not as bleak as some have painted; we can get along, but I am concerned that I put up enough evidence, to show why the standard techniques used for arb enforcement won't work to solve the issues in this case.

TMI !! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Persistent edit war!

Hey there, please take a look at User:Saichana 's editorial history. He's making a mess out of Talk Pages and was already being warned and banned before. Thanks HinduKshatrana (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@HinduKshatrana: I've blocked them for 3 months this time, as that's exactly the behaviour they were blocked for last time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #1 – Discussion tools

Read this in another language • Subscription list

This early version of the Reply tool automatically signs and indents comments.

The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. The goal of the talk pages project is to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. This project is the result of the Talk pages consultation 2019.

In a future update, the team plans to test a tool for easily linking to another user's name, a rich-text editing option, and other tools.

The team is building a new tool for replying to comments now. This early version can sign and indent comments automatically. Please test the new Reply tool.

• On 31 March 2020, the new reply tool was offered as a Beta Feature editors at four Wikipedias: Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian. If your community also wants early access to the new tool, contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF).
• The team is planning some upcoming changes. Please review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page. The team will test features such as:
  • an easy way to mention another editor ("pinging"),
  • a rich-text visual editing option, and
  • other features identified through user testing or recommended by editors.

To hear more about Editing Team updates, please add your name to the "Get involved" section of the project page. You can also watch these pages: the main project page, Updates, Replying, and User testing.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Thryduulf. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden RfC

Hi Thryduulf. I know you said that you wouldn't be able to be online for the next 12 hours, so I'm going to go ahead and close the RfC on Talk:Joe Biden by myself. I'm really sorry about this, and I wanted to explain my thought process. I think that several days ago, if we were asked to determine the result of the discussion, a team of multiple uninvolved administrators would have been advisable due to the contentiousness of the discussion. However, in the past few days, circumstances have changed with new reporting in mainstream reliable sources, such that I believe the outcome of the discussion is fairly straightforward and perhaps uncontroversial. I understand that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we have no hard publication deadlines that news organizations might. However, I think it's important that we switch gears in the discussion from "whether" we include the allegations to "how" are we going to include the allegations as soon as possible. Once again, I'm really sorry for not including your input on this, and I hope that this helps clarify why I made this decision. Mz7 (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mz7: That's fine, thank you for the note. Thryduulf (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2020

This Month in GLAM – Volume X, Issue IV, April 2020 Headlines Brazil report: GLAMce at Museu Paulista: making things machine-readable Czech Republic report: WikiGap 2020 in Czech Republic; International event; support for Wikimedia community; edit-a-thon run with the US embassy and the Swedish Embassy France report: Association des Archivistes Francais; Palladia, a museum collection portal based on Wikimedia resources Indonesia report: Wikisource Competition 2020 Ireland report: Hunt Museum image donation; Livesteaming and video demonstrations Italy report: Archivio Ricordi, webinars and videos Kosovo report: One Village, One Article for each village in Albania and Kosovo Netherlands report: Photo collections Afrika-Studiecentrum Leiden; meetup and media donations for Wiki goes Caribbean; first online WikiFriday Sweden report: Skrivstuga (edit-a-thon) online – Wikipedia in libraries Switzerland report: More women on Wikipedia UK report: Japanese silk and Spanish iron USA report: Earth Day Wikidata report: Seven Million People Can't Be Wrong Calendar: May's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 15:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ping

Thank you, but I'd seen the ping. I didn't participate because I didn't feel like doing anything, and you didn't ask me so I didn't feel like I had to answer anything :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That's fine :) Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A ping re Biden

Hi there Thryduulf,

I saw your comments at Jytdog's ArbCom about the fact that the Administrator's NB was no longer really working as intended. I was impressed by what I saw as some willingness to speak out against fellow admins when necessary for the health of the project. That is very rare in my limited experience.

Have you seen Larry Sanger's latest? He seems qualified to critique the project. After working on the Biden allegation for the past two months, I have come to realize Sanger is right, and it is a lost cause unless someone steps in, and unless something like a group of disinterested admins oversee this area.

Noticeboards are failing us, and we have perhaps discovered why. Jayron32 admits here, that to enforce NPOV on the Biden page would result in all his friends getting angry. Editors can waste hours upon hours of time attempting to bring about NPOV and abide by policy, but if admins are not willing to enforce it, we will continue to receive criticism like Sanger's, and articles like this one will be published.

I'm well aware that this note to you is insufficient in many ways. I know you were amenable to helping close the first RfC (someone ignored this fact and closed it anyway, and as per usual it was a head count rather than assessment of arguments based on PAGs), so I thought I'd follow up with you as I don't want to just walk away from this mess silently. Anyone willing to look into the problem deserves a thorough list of diffs and a clean, concise explanation of the noted problems. I don't have 8 hours to spare, and sadly, I no longer have the faith in this project required to motivate me to use my time in this way. If there is interest, I could chip away at this as time allows. It's obvious to me this requires an ArbCom since so many admins are involved. But for now, this little note to you is the best I can do. Thank you for your time, petrarchan47คุก 17:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)