Jump to content

User talk:Legacypac

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ECURBEC (talk | contribs) at 15:03, 2 July 2017 (→The 'How to do good' Philanthropy Programme draft: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Belated welcome back

Had not noticed until today that you're back. Glad to see you. David in DC (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Reviewer

Hi,
After your edits, I skimmed a little through your history. You definitely are an experienced user, and you communicate politely. Would you please consider becoming Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, currently wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the right, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). —usernamekiran(talk) 04:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hello Legacypac. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Swarm ♠ 05:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rye Pottery

Thanks for reminding me about this. It does look OK, but I will need a couple of days to to sort out the references Ruskinmonkey (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done already. Might add a few details when I find the sources,Ruskinmonkey (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For trying to deal with the madness that is Draft space. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

I wanted notify you that the article Henry Elkins has been listed on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Elkins. Mitchumch (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G2

Did you? Did you really tag a whole slew of drafts as, as test pages???? LOL.Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After eliminating a 1400 page backlog at G13 elegible AfD (which included a lot of blank ones) I found a whole category of blank submissions. [1] Sorry not much for your reading pleasure! They are either obvious tests of the AfC submit button or some weird sort of vandalism. Delete them now or delete them later as G13 but as G2 they are not going to waste admin time by being "refundable" Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's certainly a novel approach.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look a big SUBMIT button! Let me test what that does... than never come back to type a word. It's not an attempt at an article. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlvonP/sandbox

Hey Legacypac, One of the things about reviewing G13s that makes them a sort of break from harder reviewing like copyvios, A7s and the like, is that you can mostly zone out and just make sure six months is up – rarely do I see any that are not. Just note the one above which woke me up as a decline. <snark>Last I checked, it was June 12</snark>. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ya I was finding a bunch that were over 6 month but not in the CSD G13 list. Spam must have made me numb and unable to count months. Funny thing is, that page borders on a hoax. None of the claims are backed up by the sources listed except she is a non-notable ex-model. Will ax it next month. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Spam affects us all differently. You get numbing, I get nausea and a strong desire to punch walls. Hawaiians seem impervious.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The most frustrating part of SPAM is that a lot of people refuse to act against it and leave the thrash in place with the argument "spam can be solved by normal editing". Predictable: nothing happens afterwards. The Banner talk 11:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: Agreed. On that issue a few years ago we got our first really strong new tool against spam (indirect, but still it targets the user who post it broadly in a manner nothing else does) and no one is using it. The terms of use were amended to require mandatory disclosure for paid editing, broadly construed to mean anyone editing with a financial stake in the subject of their edits – where The COI guidelines is fangless, only strongly "recommending", but now we have a way to enforce something. What has been done? Nothing. I created {{Uw-paid1}}, {{Uw-paid2}}, {{Uw-paid3}} and {{Uw-paid4}} to try to make a path. They are barely being used.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What tool? And are your templates part of Twinkle? The Banner talk 12:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPP

Legacypac (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

New Page Reviewer

Hi. I'm just letting you know that following a discussion at User talk:Arthur Rubin, your account has been added back to the New Page Reviewer user group. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your help. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawless John draft for BestHeating

Hey there Legacypac, I just wanted to enquire about what you meant by the sources 'not proving notability' - an example of a page in exactly the same niche as my business can be seen on Better Bathrooms - they have less sources on their page and some are from the same place as my sources. Can you explain why this would be accepted but my page not? The way that I set it out is virtually identical because I would assume that if their page can be accepted and published that mine would be too. I'm just a little confused. It would appear that I have done exactly what others in my business niche have done, but my page is deemed 'not important' enough even though I have more recent and varied indepedent sources to cite. Please help I'm a bit of a noob. I appreciate it. Thanks. John --LawlessJohn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should really not be writing about your own business. See WP:COI If your business is truly WP:N someone else will write about it. Second, there are countless pages that don't meet standards here. I rarely compare business x vs y to see what a page needs to be acceptable, I compare against policy. I've looked into the page you reference and just sent it for deletion discussion. That company is not WP:Noteable and fails WP:CORPDEPTH Thanks for reaching out. If it makes you feel better my businesses don't have and should not have wikipedia pages, but we've won major awards and commendations while developing several hundred million in real estate projects. Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Legacypac. It's appreciated. LawlessJohn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Don't take the bait. I've dealt with editors like that. They love to push buttons in order to get their way, and it's basically what they live for. IME it's quite like dealing with people that suffer a psychological dysfunction. It's quite pitiful actually. Do not engage them or their ilk, but rather, kill them with courtesy and give them all the rope they want. Darknipples (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban per ANI

As per the consensus at ANI [2], you are topic banned from moving any article from Draft:, User: or any other space to main space, regardless of author, and must instead use the WP:AFC system for your own articles. Per standard terms, this ban may be appealed in 6 months and every 6 months thereafter that it is not successful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of my promotions [3]. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Legacypac, I don't judge the merits of the individual, I just gauge the consensus and implement the will of the community. I have no opinion, for if I did, then I couldn't close the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the "will" is based on easily demolished false allegations. As a closing admin are you are not required to consider the merits of the arguments and evidence presented? I'm absolutely shocked at your close sanctioning the victim and letting the bully carry on. I'll have to reconsider my involvement here. Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the consensus but missed my chance to comment. If the hounding continues, continue to gather evidence and diffs off wiki and kick it up to ArbCom before considering leaving. With the topic ban in place you've got little to lose - just leaving without kicking it to ArbCom would be denying yourself another chance at a trial and admitting defeat to the hounder. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As closing admin, I can't read all the evidence and if I disagree with the community, then override them. That would be a "supervote". You know this, or at least you should. If you think I misread the consensus, you can always raise the issue at WP:AN, but they will NOT reconsider the merits there; they will only look at my close and determine if my close is a reasonable read of the consensus based on what the editors were saying. I'm not recommending it, and if you instead try to use it to argue the merits again, it could have negative consequences for you, so understand now you can only ask for a review of MY actions there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So this is different then closing XfDs and RfCs... I was not aware of that. You admit you counted !votes while ignoring the substance. I'm disappointed, I had higher regard for your judgment than this decision shows. Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness' sake, Legacy. It is in no way rational for you to expect that an opinion held by one or two admins is going to outweigh an opinion held by half a dozen admins or more, when looking at the same evidence. There is such a thing as being so certain in one's own convictions that one loses track of what is actually going on. (I should know.) Newimpartial (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Not really. When closing XfDs and RfCs, policy considerations are more important because they are the foundation of the actions. When topic banning someone, it is all about whether the community trusts your judgement or not. There aren't a lot a of policy considerations to weigh against. If Editor Bob interprets your actions as disruptive, I can't look at your actions and say he is wrong, I can only judge whether his rationale is reasonable or not. The rules for closing are exactly the same. Closing ANI tbans and ibans are very different only because what you are considering is very different. In this case, it was very clear what the community wanted, and there was lots of participation, and the arguments for and against the topic ban were sane and articulated clearly, plus the discussion was open for a very long time. You were topic banned by the community before I closed. By closing, I didn't decide your fate nor choose your sanction; I just summarized what the community had already collectively decided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy, please take what I'm about to say as coming from someone who generally agrees with your work and sees you as a valuable contributor, ok? I think it's best to accept the TBan. Arguing with Dennis isn't going to get you anywhere and it just makes you look unreasonable. There's nothing stopping you from doing the rest of the valuable work you do in draftspace - MfD noms, CSD tagging, etc. The only thing you're banned from is moves to main. Given that there were editors in there arguing for a full ban from all draftspace / MfD type stuff, I think a promotion TBan is a pretty fair outcome. Just...focus on the rest of what you do, you'll still make a difference. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to come across as arguing. I just want to understand the process and the surprising result. Obviously given Dennis's explanation of process I'll run any future ANi very differently. There is obviously nothing wrong with my move record since my moved page survival rate is very high even with enemies stalking every page I touch. Just today a couple of AfD'd moves survived without even a struggle. I can think of at least three ways to get pages promoted that need promoted. Requested Moves, commenting and resubmitting in AFCH, and posting requests on Dennis's talk page so he can verify my judgment is sound in seperating the gems from the crap. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not the one you have to convince. As a matter of fact, I would probably avoid any future consideration unless I had strong feelings about it. Right now, I don't have any feelings about it. Keeping a record is a good idea, and in 6 month you can point to that. They didn't say anything about using WP:RM and a few did say using AFC for new articles. My opinion as closer is that using WP:RM is acceptable, their main concern was you not making the moves unilaterally. And I didn't take any of it personally, nor did I think any of your questions were unreasonable. I know it is frustrating, that is why I tried to be patient and explain it as best as I could. My job as closer is to make sure you understand now, so you don't run into trouble later. If by some chance you screw and move something out of habit, be smart enough to revert and report yourself to ANI with an apology. Make it clear you have every intention of following the restrictions. Keep it short and simple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One other clarification. No one, including you, mentioned redirects. I presume there is no issue with me creating redirects in mainspace as I deem useful? I'll also note I have specifically not sought to have my page creations auto patrolled as I welcome the efforts of NPP on pages I create or handle. Legacypac (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since it wasn't mentioned, I don't see a bar to creating them. It isn't a move. Obviously I suggest caution, as everything you do will be examined when it comes time to consider repealing your topic ban. Doing too much of any one thing tends to make it come under closer scrutiny. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac: some of your actions (particular page moves) in the past have been problematic and you did not hide the fact that you were deliberately moving inappropirate drafts into mainspace. It is likely that many participants in the recent discussion remember those events and understandably took them into account when voting on the topic ban.

If you have mended your ways (and all the recent evidence seems to point this way) then it is obviously unfair that you have been restricted in this way, and it would be right to review this restriction in a few months.

Going forward you can use the RM process, or if you maintain a list of pages which you believe are suitable to move then I'm sure some other editors (TPSs?) would be happy to review these and make the move for you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your kind words Martin User:MSGJ Absolutely I promoted several test cases last year that some people insisted had to be kept at all cost - I did it openly as way to push the community to face some screwy interpretation of deletion policy. Given that we get hundreds of unsuitable pages posted into mainspace every day, I hardly think that adding a couple more pieces of junk broke Wikipedia, especially since I was monitoring them to ensure they were deleted long before being indexed. At this point you don't even have to make 10 edits or be here 4 days to put crap in mainspace which makes it pretty ironic that an editor with 10 years experience and 30,000 edits would be Tbanned from doing something any 10 year old troll or paid spammer is free to do.
Feel free to watchlist this page User:Legacypac/Promotions which I created to track my promotions to date and provide easier review of my work. I've been planning to clean up some of the 400+ G13 Postponed drafts and will post all pages I recommend for promotion during the next 6 months on this page. That will further establish a verifiable track record of positive contributions. The only joy in sorting out junk is finding the occasional interesting gem of a page to promote. Legacypac (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:52:11, 19 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Bksahoo


In-spite of business websites. I have added two independent sources like

http://www.irdindia.in/journal_ijrdmr/pdf/vol5_iss1/11.pdf
http://www.oneglobeforum.com/speaker/2015/dr-b-k-sahoo-one-globe-2015-speaker and Trusted source like TOI, where the name is mention Mr. B.K Sahoo(Chairman)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhubaneswar/Achievers-felicitated-by-TOI-in-Bhubaneswar/articleshow/47663524.cms

Bksahoo (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:38:26, 20 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Tetralophodon


I have a question about your rejection of my AfC submission on "Art of Problem Solving", and first would like to thank you for taking the time to review my article. I think that Art of Problem Solving is notable enough to be a separate page from its founder, Richard Rusczyk. Thus, I would like to eliminate the redirect to the Rusczyk article and create a separate Art of Problem Solving article. I'm new to Wikipedia, and would like to know why that is not permissible. Thanks!

Tetralophodon (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your question User:Tetralophodon. Without the part about the Art of Problem Solving in the Rusczyk page there would be precious little to justify that page existing. We only split up pages when there is too much info to make a page easy to read. If you can improve the existing page that is a very good place to start. As it is now it looks weak and barely WP:Notable. Legacypac (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A

Question on your comment on Draft:René B. Azurin page

Hi Legacypac,

Thank you for reviewing my submission and your comment on my page (Draft:René_B._Azurin). I am not quite sure what you mean by a "problematic" tone. Could you clarify please? In any case, I've looked at some other entries and did some revisions on the submitted article based on what I saw. I hope this resolves the problem. Thank you.

Peppa.santos (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification

Hi there,

There were a few errors in the way the page was created last time. One was that I am a newbie and hadn't properly considered the style and tone of the text before publishing and had copied across some text to edit live, not realising it was published. The text has been thoroughly written now to be within the guidelines of wiki. I also did not declare a COI at the time. Thanks LJBazza (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madrone

I'll undelete it. Your comment about "they charted" made me start wondering, and I discovered WP:BAND and its comment about the band likely being notable if it had a song that charted. Since that's apparently the case here, I can't in good faith keep it undeleted; it seems an absurdly low bar for notability, but the bar's unambiguous. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm not saying the bar is correct, but that's it and that's why I passed it to mainspace in the first place. Legacypac (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on Gu Yi

Thanks for your comments and your encouragement on my translated article Draft:Gu Yi. However, another article I translated Tony Chang seems is to be deleted. I'm not sure why this happens, so would you mind to have a look at that article? Thanks very much.--Richard Yee (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ethelbert (whale) has been accepted

Ethelbert (whale), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Movement of page causing confusion...

Hi, you were involved in reinstating my page, but now there seems to be confusion, as I am now redirected from the original page to a different page. When the mistaken deletion was reversed, shouldn't the old URL still work? Instead when I go to the original URL here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Digital_Literacy_Coach

I get redirected here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Digital_Literacy_Coach&redirect=no

To a new page called: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MisterMcHugh/Digital_Literacy_Coach

Now whenever I try to edit, I'm not recognised as the original author? I get this message:

Editing User:MisterMcHugh/Digital Literacy Coach User account "MisterMcHugh" is not registered. If you wish to use "MisterMcHugh" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username.

I have now followed these instructions to amend my username, capitalising the second M, but really unsure while all this is necessary! --MisterMcHugh (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was spelt wrong (wrong capitalisation). I have moved it again and it should be in the right place now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposing_IBAN_between_Godsy_and_Legacypac. Primefac (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Dallezam/West Seneca United

==

I did not know that this page was still up, nor was it intended as a web host. I think it was created for use in a sandbox without the intent to publish. Thus I did that with a few articles not realizing that I never found the sandbox in those days. Thanks for bringing i t to my attention. The Landrover 19:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thanks for he feedback. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFD on Obama bin laden closed as "speedy keep"

Hello again. Just to let you know, the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 29#Obama bin laden was closed as "speedy keep". Before rehashing the same issue, please notify me, and/or look up old archives at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log. If the former, then we may possibly have mutual discussion. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess some people don't see this as a BLP problem. I'll let it rest for now but happy to support any future deletion effort. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Legacypac and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the WP:HOUNDING continues. I hope it backfires, Godsy. The Banner talk 00:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A community interaction ban has been imposed on you

Hello Legacypac, following a community discussion at WP:ANI, a 2-way interaction ban between yourself and User:Godsy is now in place. Please read the closure notes. Violations of this ban may be enforced with blocks. Regards, — xaosflux Talk 04:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you very much User:Xaosflux Happy Canada Day! Legacypac (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, please note: the standard exception allowing for Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. means this iban has no impact upon the case filing that is open with ArbCom right now and any "work papers/sandboxes" directly related. — xaosflux Talk 04:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: BizWest Media has been accepted

BizWest Media, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

» Shadowowl | talk 08:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 'How to do good' Philanthropy Programme draft

Hello and thanks for your comment about the incorrect placement of citations. I have made amendments, so would be grateful if you could take a look and see if it's acceptable now. Appreciate your input, if you have time. Many thanks. ECURBEC (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&oldid=788630622"