User talk:Bryanrutherford0

MainTalkWorksSandbox

Perspectives about WikiProject Texas

Bryanrutherford0, I think our digital paths may have crossed a few years ago when I was making some edits in the transportation sections of various Texas cities. However, most of my edits concern Texas history. WP Texas appears to be inactive. Do you think there is any interest in waking up the project? Do you have any insights about any of the subprojects? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe2: I've been periodically trying to go through and rate the articles piling up at WP:TX, and some years back I made some efforts to improve the articles on some significant Texas institutions and landmarks, but I agree that there doesn't seem to be any real activity through the WikiProject. I'm interested in trying to restart it in a more organized way, though I'm in the process of running a series of FACs right now that may take up a lot of my editing attention over the next couple of months. I'm also active at the subproject for Austin, where I've rated and categorized many articles and created others (and I've got one nominated at GAN currently, too), but I don't see many other editors there, either. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

When you get a chance, please let me know specifics about what you would like to see from the projects. I am rating unassessed articles at WP Hou, whittling down a list from about 500. The project is far behind in reassessing stub articles, too. Best wishes for your FACs, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing any real interest in maintaining WikiProject Houston as an independent entity. I think the only way to save the project is through a merger with WikiProject Texas. Similarly with the other subprojects. Do you support a merger of the various sub projects with WikiProject Texas? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I at least do use and follow WP:Austin, because I like having a subset of the Texas topics marked as being relevant to Austin for me to comb through and try to improve, but I don't know how many others might be finding it useful, and AnotherBeliever seems to be the only one who responded to your post at the Austin project's talk page. Haha maybe there are only two editors using that project currently! I think I'd like to put together a draft to-do list for WP:Austin indicating my priorities for improving coverage of the city and add that to the project page, since the one there now hasn't been changed since 2010. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, WP Houston under my proposal would be reorganized as a task force, just as San Antonio is a task force under WP Texas. The task force does not assess articles under its own banner. But you are correct that if you want to keep distinct assessments for WP Austin, then this project should remain as is. But WP Houston, WP D-FW, and all of the university subs would still exist with their own pages and the ability to propose priorities as tasks forces.

After another week I will probably submit a proposal for a merger, unless you have an objection. We can keep the status quo for WP Austin. WP Houston has about 3800 articles and quality has suffered through many of its articles. I have seen a similar problem with WP D-FW articles, with a count of about 2700. There are articles with Texas content which are not yet carrying the US-TX banner. If there is a merger, I can help you with assessments and also look through the stubs for articles to promote. Please let me know what you need from me. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, then I support that change completely. These projects certainly don't appear to be getting any support from WikiProject Cities; it makes sense to treat them as subprojects of WP:TX (including Austin). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

One more question before I write my proposal: do you want a WP Austin with distinct assessments, or are you ok with the separate assessments going away (like the San Antonio task force)? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It definitely doesn't need to have its own quality asessments; I just want it to have its own importance ratings. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Importance of Toll Road Authorities

I am looking at Houston articles rated as top and high importance for some ideas about prioritizing improvements for WP Houston. Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) did not show up on either list. I changed the rating from low to high importance. I also noticed that WP Texas rates it as low importance. I don't know if this is true of all Texas toll road authorities, but HCTRA can issue bonds and run revolving debt, and that seem to me to be a big deal. Should toll road authorities such as HCTRA be rated as mid importance? If you agree, I will make the changes. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe five years ago I made a sweep through the articles with higher importance ratings in WP:TX and tried to get a clear idea in my own head of what the levels meant, and I came up with something like this: "Top" means that you couldn't possibly be said to have a good understanding of Texas if you didn't know about this thing; "High" means that it's not essential to an understanding of Texas, but a serious study of the state would probably include it; "Mid" means that it's not essential at all, perhaps of only regional significance, but knowing about it does increase one's understand of Texas; "Low" means that knowing about this topic doesn't meaningfully add to one's understanding of Texas as a whole (almost all of the Texan biographies go here). So, yes, I would rate a major regional tolling authority as Mid-importance to the state as a whole, and probably high-importance to the city/regional task force. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Littlefield Fountain

Congrats! Great work, and I hope you'll consider working on other articles about public art in Austin and Texas. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you, and Kaiser Kitkat and all who helped for First Silesian War, "crucial to European history"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Good Article maint

Hi Bryanrutherford0, wondering if we might chip away at automating some of the tasks you are currently doing manually, as in Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches. For example it seems like in the latest diff the first section (line 3) was simply removing the {{good article}} template as in here. Would this always be the case, or does it require human determination? -- GreenC 13:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@GreenC: It would be great to automate more of the maintenance, but it would take some programming beyond my abilities, since, as the notice at the top of Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches points out, there are a variety of reasons that an article can end up in one of these lists, though some are certainly more common than others. The most common problems seem to be with articles that have been newly listed or delisted where the editor making the change didn't complete the process, but there are also out-of-process promotions, random deletions of chunks of the article or the talk page... I think the simplest thing to automate might be fixing the redirects in WP:GA/All when an article has been renamed, although non-simple cases crop up there, too, e.g. when an article has been renamed because editors decided that something different was a primary topic and made the original title a disambiguation page. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes won't be able to solve all problems with 100% automation. But to focus on those areas that can be automatically done safely to reduce the manual overhead which seems like a good idea where possible. The bot making the report is one step away from making a page correction edit. How the bot behaves would depend on your recommendation of rules to follow since you have gained expertise in this area. In your experience, have you ever seen a case where you did not remove the {{good article}} when it gets flagged in that section? Or could it automatically be removed every time? Noted about the redirects, though if the original title is now a dab page due to primary topic change it should not be flagged as a redirect in the report, since there is no # REDIRECT statement in the page. Unless you have seen differently. -- GreenC 16:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm I should have read the resolving mismatches section since it answers the question that yes there could be cases where it should not be removed. -- GreenC 16:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If it would help you or someone else with the necessary skill to attempt writing a bot, I could try to create a comprehensive list of the cases I've encountered and the proper editing response in each case, and we could try to think through criteria for identifying and distinguishing the cases. I could contribute at the pseudocode level, at least! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes sounds good. Basically to encode your expert knowledge. -- 17:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Second Silesian War scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Second Silesian War has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 7 August 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 7, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll be back then, but just thank you for your support for Monteverdi's operas that now became a featured topic! ... exactly 10 years after both Brian and I were declared awesome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for "the second in a series of four I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

And today the Third Silesian War, already! - I enjoyed having the TFA yesterday, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Shackelford County Courthouse Historic District

On 27 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shackelford County Courthouse Historic District, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that many structures in the Shackelford County Courthouse Historic District were built in the 1880s after Albany, Texas, became the terminus of the now-defunct Texas Central Railroad? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shackelford County Courthouse Historic District. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Shackelford County Courthouse Historic District), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Austin, Texas

Thanks for the thanks at Austin, Texas. I was actually hoping someone would revert my edit, as I'd like to start an RfC about promotional rankings in articles. The Canadians did it here and I wanted to get a broad consensus to do the same to US articles, similar to this RfC which prohibits "affluent" from the first line of city articles. Some articles are just heaped with rankings and promos. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Third Silesian War

You reverted my edit noting that "Decisive field battles" had a "potential for crippling casualties", saying that that was not the only reason those battles were generally rare, and challenging me to provide a source if I asserted it was. Nowhere did I assert that that was the only reason for avoiding big battles, just one more reason—in addition to the others, such as the logistics mentioned in this section—that might have been overlooked because it had not been mentioned. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You say that you didn't assert that the desire to avoid casualties was the only reason, yet no other reason is given, in that sentence or elsewhere in the paragraph in question. Anyway, the function of the section is describe what European warfare in the eighteenth century was like, not to try to explain why it had the characteristic features that it had, which is why the section begins with a hatnote to the article on early modern warfare, where readers can go to learn more about such questions. I appreciate you adding the wikilink to the Golden Cavalry of Saint George; it's in other articles in the series, but I had forgotten to put it in this one. As to the "Explain" template, the answer is that Prussia was not "a UK ally" until precisely the events being described in that section (the "Diplomatic Revolution"); Prussia and Britain had been on opposing sides in the previous Silesian Wars, so it was quite a change for the British to align with Prussia and the French with Austria. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Irving Briskin

Thanks for noticing that. I copied the infobox from another article, and must have picked up the good article template at that point. I know that at best it's a C, which is what I put on the talk page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

After a favour ...

Hi Bryan, how busy are you? And how generous are you feeling? Do you fancy reviewing one of my unloved GANs? Perhaps Punic Wars? Although I admit that it is a biggy at nearly 7,000 words? Being serious, if time or motivation don't permit, I entirely understand. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha I'd love to pay forward some of the good that's been done for my articles around here. I'm a school teacher, and my year just started, so I'm a bit swamped at the moment, but I'll give the article a read and see if I feel up to a review. Thanks for the invitation! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't realise that. I withdraw the request. I wouldn't want to be responsible for wrecking someone's education. Or your job prospects! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Congratulations to Bryan Rutherford, whose fantastic work on articles about the Silesian Wars has earned him the Imperial Triple Crown Jewels. Your work is appreciated. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Today: Thank you to for Silesian Wars, "the fourth and last in a series I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century; this one is a summary and overview of the three about the individual wars."! - Can you perhaps tell me how to find the entry for Innisfree Garden in the NRHP? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for participating in the preservation of Texas-related articles. Your good deeds do not go unnoticed with me and others. You are greatly appreciated. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Newton Collins

On 15 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Newton Collins, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Newton Collins was enslaved, manumitted, re-enslaved, and emancipated before becoming a successful businessman and landowner? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Newton Collins. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Newton Collins), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent GA nominee fixes

Bryanrutherford0, you recently changed a number of GA nominee subtopics, and in three cases, they were invalid. Please, before you make any changes, check the list of approved values on the WP:GAN page, and use them exactly (including capitalization). It's "Mathematics and mathematicians", not "Mathematics"; "Sports and recreation", not "Sports", and "Economics and business", not "Economics". ("Geography" is a correct value.) If you put in a short version of the subtopic, or a miscapitalized version, the bot will not recognize the subtopic value as valid and will keep trying and trying to place the nominations on the page... and fail. I've fixed them now, so they should go through the next time the bot runs. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, BlueMoonset; Template:GA doesn't mind certain abbreviations, as this page makes clear, and there's no indication in Template:GAN whether the topic is valid or not. Thanks for the heads-up. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Bryanrutherford0, I really wish the bot was better able to deal with capitalization variations or abbreviations, but it isn't, and we've had no luck getting a new bot written or a new (active) owner for that particular bot module. Until we get to that point, unfortunately, we're going to be stuck with exactitude, at least in the {{GA nominee}} template's subtopic field. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

First Silesian War

Hi Bryanrutherford0. I saw you didn't like my method of noting to readers which sources are open and limited access. I figured it was a 50/50 chance you'd appreciate its value. Its approach isn't as tied to the citation template, and I saw in the references you were fastidious about them. But, given that I like signalling levels of access for interested readers, I thought it was worth a try in case you were open to the idea. I saw you did let the within-template jstor addition stay. Unfortunately, there is no within-template way to designate that jstor too is limited access (via registration.) At present, you can only choose jstor-access=free, which is incorrect. and jstor-access. Worse yet, jstor-access often conflicts with doi-access, which is usually limited, often conflicts with doi-access, which is usually closed). But interested readers can at least click the jstor link and figure it out.

I also removed the article's most salient redlink. As you can tell from the lack of edit, I did this without touching the article. Instead, I created a (currently inadequate, but hopefully passable) article for the redlink. Unfortunately, there remains another problematic link I noted, which I did initially try to fix by edit. This is the link to the lesser-known Franco-German 1741 Treaty of Breslau, which I attempted to change but then reverted after noting I mixed up treaties. As it currently is when I first clicked it, it sends the reader into the War of Austrian Succession with no context or follow up. I'm not sure if you want to address this in some way, as it could be viewed as an issue external to the article. But I thought I'd make you aware of it in case you weren't. And, of course, I'll leave its solution (or not) to your discretion.

As a final note, I came to your article while trying to clean up another, messier First Silesian War-related article, and was impressed by the amount of work and apparent pleasure you put into this. It is a solid article! ( But then, looking at your FA discussion, I'm figuring you already know how good the article is.)
Cheers
Wtfiv (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, mate! I appreciate your obvious interest in building up the encyclopedia (Treaty of Nymphenburg and Battle of Mollwitz are coming along nicely!). I moved the information you added into the citation templates where possible, and then I removed some of it because that's what the documentation in the template advises. That documentation says that URLs in citations "are presumed to be free-to-read" and only require a note when they aren't free; by contrast, named identifiers (jstor, bibcode and the like) "are presumed to lie behind a paywall or registration barrier" and merit note only when they are freely available. I also like your idea to point out that the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie is in German, and I just moved that information into the parameter that already exists for that purpose in the citation template. The function of the citation templates is to help citations to follow a consistent format across millions of pages, which improves readability (and verifiability), and I think that a featured article should probably go with the recommendation of the documentation for the sake of consistency. I think the information you were looking to add is useful, but there's not (that I know of) a clear, standardized way of indicating in a citation that the full text of a book source is available for free through the given link. Maybe someone should start a discussion at Template talk:Citation (unless it's already been discussed in the archives)? Thanks for pitching in! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0: Thanks, and it's very cool you checked out the two articles! As you suggest, I'll probably drop my comments into the citation group. This particular side issue of mine is more about helping external readers see at a glance when they have access to the available open resources. The current situation is messy and for non-regular Wikipedians, I think the default is to not click references, whereas I'd like to encourage it. (e.g., How many incorrect citations have you encountered?)

Though the Wikipedia discussion may have rules for defaults, I think intermediate user default for both books and articles is that even if linked, there is no access. I know that is true for me. If I see a book citation, even with a link, I never assume its free. Usually, a well-made book citation has a url-links take readers to a Google book page that makes the cited point, sometimes with just a snippet. Readers can go no further. Sometimes we're limited to just the snip. Ironically url-access=limited denotes a higher level of access than no link. The free or open access key would the reader know the whole work is available. Yes, for articles, the default is closed access for sure. That is why I go with JSTOR when I can because it is better than nothing. It has limited access (registration and 6/articles per month; 100/month during the past year) instead of typical default doi-based articles, which almost always have completely closed access (though there's no template designation for JSTOR limited access).

As an aside, what started me attempting the edit on your page was seeing the lock icons in your citations. For some reason Chrome- but not Firefox- overlaps the icon with text in the url-access=limited designation,making the text and icon into a mashup. But I think this may be just my computer, as it worked when I tested it on another one later.

Anyway, I've gone too far afield, I think. Getting into the Wikinerd citation mode. It was fun to discuss and get your perspective. And definitely having all the Silesian wars FAed attests that your point has strong consensus! Thanks for your reply. Again, your work on the various articles is outstanding, and it looks like you really put in the time helping other articles get GA and FA ratings, which I'm sure is much appreciated.
Best
Wtfiv (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A Joyous Yuletide to You!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Bryanrutherford0, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 16:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Your reversion of my edit to First Silesian War

Your reversion of my good-faith and sourced improvement of this article and your insistence that I instead take part in an unnecessary and convoluted metadiscussion is a reason that I and many other qualified people who would like to improve Wikipedia are giving up on participating in the project. As a result of your reversion of my edit, the quality of the article is slightly diminished. The cumulative effect of actions like yours is to drive away capable and decent people and to gradually erode the quality of Wikipedia. Too bad. My time is better spent elsewhere. Marco polo (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

...Marco polo, you're talking about an interaction that happened over a year ago? It took me a couple of minutes just to find it. Are you just going around "telling off" every editor you've ever disagreed with, or something? As I said at the time, you were interjecting changes to an article that was in the middle of a Featured Article Candidate review, in which numerous editors were actively discussing the best ways to polish and improve that article, and your changes were undoing work that the group had just done. You were welcome to participate in that process, as I invited you to do at the time. When multiple writers with different opinions are trying to improve the same document, discussion actually is "necessary"; if you're unwilling to participate in that sort of discussion, then you're free to write a new article from scratch or expand and improve an article that no one else is actively working on. It's hard work reaching a consensus about the best version of an article among many editors, and it's common enough to get burned out. I hope you come back to the project when you're in a better mood. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry. I was used to thinking it was 2020 and misperceived an edit from 2019 as recent. I didn't know the context and apologize for jumping to the conclusion that I had fallen victim to one of Wikipedia's unfortunate power struggles, which I try to avoid. It does make sense that the featured article process would require more discussion than usual. Best wishes, Marco. Marco polo (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Waller Plan

On 28 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Waller Plan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1839 city plan for Austin, Texas, is thought to have been inspired by the original 1682 city plan for Philadelphia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Waller Plan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Waller Plan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mississippi–Alabama barrier islands

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mississippi–Alabama barrier islands you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JPxG -- JPxG (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar!

Thank you for leaving a Civility Barnstar on my Talk page. Yes, I have had a lot of weird comments left on my Talk page, and, against the advice of many, I tend to engage with editors that don't exactly abide by the rules (and explain how differences of opinion should be resolved) instead of ignoring them or reporting them to Admins. (I also leave all comments on my Talk page, even when they involve abuse against my person, because I don't want to be seen as hiding anything from anyone.) While following the Golden Rule is its own reward, I certainly appreciate someone taking the time to give me a "good job"; I've had a few comments of that nature before, but you're the first person to give me a barnstar. So thanks again. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

For regular and quality reviews

	Featured and good topic reviewer's award
	Bryan, reviewers over at FGTC are always irregular and scarce. I'm much appreciative of your regular reviews, and consistent evaluation against the criteria (the latter of which is especially uncommon!). Best Aza24 (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mississippi–Alabama barrier islands

The article Mississippi–Alabama barrier islands you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mississippi–Alabama barrier islands for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JPxG -- JPxG (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for your openness/kind words in regards to my edits, school projects are a lot easier when people help you out! 00matthew2000 (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)