User talk:Ahunt

"Perspective tables"

Hi Adam, a IP farm has been adding "Perspective tables" (apparently translated from the Italian "Tavole prospettiche") to various articles lately, as seen here. I know I usually call them "3-views" , but I think there's another word/phrase we usually use in articles, and I can't find/remember what it is. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No, "three-view" is it! - Ahunt (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I thought I'd seen another term used somewhere. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Commons goes with "3-view". - Ahunt (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for support

Your repeated "thanks" for some arguable intercessions of mine have been most reassuring, and very welcome. Thanks indeed! Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful. I had followed the whole interaction and thought your points were comprehensible, even if subject to some debate. I thought the response was an over-reaction, but then I have seen that quite often from that one particular editor. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Constant posting

Hi Ahunt, Sorry for the constant posting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Azad. I will not do it again. Sorry! Kaitudi (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be a good idea not to do that. You will just annoy other editors and, along with the canvassing, increase the chances that the article will get deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Aviation Article Inconsistiency in Mentioning the "Worst/Deadliest Aviation Disasters"

Hi, Ahunt. I noticed that you reverted my edit on Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752. While your edit summary makes sense, why, then, do we mention that "Saudi Arabian Flight 163 is the world's deadliest aviation disaster involving a Lockheed L-1011 Tristar" and that "Mexicana Flight 940 is the world's deadliest aviation disaster involving a Boeing 727"? The info that I put in for Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 is true, and I provided a credible source for it as well. Your clarification is greatly appreciated.

Thank you. Why can't I edit Userpedia? (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - yep those should go too. Basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Ahunt (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Navion and L-17 Revisions

I was surprised to see virtually all of the work I did on this page today reversed. You ask for a reference for the change, and I'm happy to provide the documents, but in many cases you have no references cited...but have changed back to incorrect information. Is there any means for us to informally chat regarding this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blattimer (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your note here. This discussion really should happen over at Talk:Ryan Navion so other editors watching that article can participate. The short version is that that is fine to add all that info if you have refs you can cite as per WP:PROVEIT, but the article is current a mess of unsourced (and probably wrong) text. I would prefer we trim everything unsourced first and then you can add your info, with sources, as that will improve the article. I am happy to trim all that and then have you add your sourced info, if you want to go that route. - Ahunt (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll admit to being a little chuffed, but I'm working through it. I'll start walking through each aspect to see if we can build a better foundation. Thanks for being more patient with me that I've been with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blattimer (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is a bit daunting for newcomers these days! Let me clean up the unsourced stuff and then you can put in your text and refs. Let me know if you have any questions. If you need to recover anything you added it is not lost, it is all still in the page history tab! - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay:  Done - all yours! - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: looks like the discussion was moved to Talk:Ryan Navion while I was working on this, so let's keep the conversion over there now. - Ahunt (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Grumman sport boat

Hi Adam, hope you're staying cool up there. Summer finally arrived with June down here. Could you look at Grumman sport boat? I know you usually deal with sailboats, but I've no experience with boats of any kind. I'm having it checked for copyvios, and if there are, there might not be any article left. It seems like a notable topic to me, but as written, it's horrible. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

LOL, high of 17C (63F) today, so yeah it is cool here. I had a read of it and, yeah, it needs a re-write, all right! Most of the info looks okay, but, indeed may be a copyright vio, need to check the main ref, which is sounds like you are working on. I would suggest if the copyright vios can be cleaned out first, then let's see what is left after and start from there. - Ahunt (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa couldn't find any online copyvios. - BilCat (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Well that is good, at least. However without any footnotes and mostly a paper ref, it is hard to tell what is referenced there and what is not. - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Owners Associations

Hi Adam,

regarding your amendments to the Owners Associations section of the Hallberg-Rassy article:

• note that there are quite a few other wiki yacht design / construction articles, which have Owners Associations comments and sections. They have been there for years. From memory Oyster Yachts and Moody Yachts come to mind. I am sure their are others.
• I believe this type information is very useful and hard to locate. It took me years to track down Hallberg-Rassy Owners Group website, which contains very useful information for assessing and understanding Hallberg-Rassy yachts. I know of quite a few other similar sites, ie Valiant yachts owners group, which contain massive amounts of information, particularly as Valiant yachts are no longer built. The Moody Owners group is the same, the only location where you can view details about previously built Moody yachts, as the offical Moody site does not contain any historical information. However, apart from discusssions in various sailing web forums (ie Cruisers & Sailing Forums) there is very little 3rd party references available. I take it a site like Cruising & Sailing Forum is not an acceptable 3rd party reference?
• Plus I actually think it is debatle calling these other sites spam. There is a lot of very useful information being posted on those other pages, particularly the Facebook pages. The trouble is the 3rd party references are very limited and mostly are on Cruising & Sailing type forums.

PS thanks for all the thankyou’s over the years, its appreciated (apart from today’s!) Ilenart626 (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. As far as "other articles do this", see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It just means they need cleaning up too. It doesn't matter how useful they might be, the encyclopedia is not here to promote clubs. If their websites have useful information than they can be used as refs, but just lists of non-notable organizations in manufacturer's articles is spammy and promotional, in particular see WP:NOTADVERTISING. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Quadrotors

See here for the latest silliness on the Quadrotor article. No surprise really, as they even misspelled "aircraft" in their username. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm - Ahunt (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like they're digging in. Sigh. You can't fix stupid! - BilCat (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No, but you can revert stupid! - Ahunt (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

We may have to get stupid blocked if it keeps up! - BilCat (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

And this wasn't a good sign either. Literally! - BilCat (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I did see that and that it was removed. No idea what it was trying to communicate, though. Maybe it is better not to know! - Ahunt (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The multiple middle fingers? It said "Screw you!!!!!" I understood that well enough! - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Perhaps it is my icon set or something, but I couldn't make out what those were! - Ahunt (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You're lucky then ;) - BilCat (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah they looked mostly like candy apples to me here. That's Linux I guess! - Ahunt (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You'd think Wikipedia would disable the icon set from working, but maybe they can't. It's mostly annoying, and only used by functional illiterates anyway. Like that one. - BilCat (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It takes brains to use the template icons, which work regardless of the browser being used. ;) - BilCat (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The stupidity continues. I guess we'll have to get the article protected. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone needs a new hobby. Perhaps a block would encourage that? - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Won't help if they have a dynamic IP, which they've already used once. - BilCat (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The unwillingness of people to learn continues to astound me. I've always read encyclopedias to learn what I don't know, and still I read Wikipedia for that reason also. It's a fringe benefit that Wikipedia allows users to create and improve articles to share information with others, which I gladly participate in. I'm reminded of the old proverb, part of which reads, "He who knows not, and knows not he knows not, He is a fool, shun him." Too many who fit that definition are trying to edit Wikipedia, and there's no easy solution. - BilCat (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Or, more succinctly, "you can't fix stupid..." - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yez, but my way sounds nicer. :) - BilCat (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You get 10/10 for WP:CIVIL. - Ahunt (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe being UNcivil would work? Being civil certainly hasn't. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Time for a block. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have asked an admin to review the situation there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

...and he is now blocked from editing the page. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That page-block feature is nice! Btw, did you see that his "source" cites Wikipedia? Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not WP:RS, even though it actually defeated the argument he was making. Let's hope things settle down now. - Ahunt (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I expect the IPs to show back up, but semi is available if they do. I don't expect any conversations on the talk pages, but we can always hope. - BilCat (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Now we have something new on that same article! Just removed it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed that. Btw, Aircrafts and motorboats decided to vandalize two articles and got him-/her-/itself indef blocked. CIR strikes again! - BilCat (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that is too bad. I was hoping he would reform and become a useful contributor. - Ahunt (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Unlikely, as you can't reform stupid! :) - BilCat (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

. - Ahunt (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It might also be "stupidity caused by youth and inexperience", also known as immaturity. But some people never grow out of that either. :) - BilCat (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Some people just aren't cut out to be editors here, it seems. - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope. The duck is back. See Special:Contributions/45.74.83.176. - BilCat (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Worth asking for semi-protect? See also the recent history — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Kind of looks like it, doesn't it? I can ask. - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I just asked at WP:RFP. - BilCat (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

LOL, I just left a request at User talk:MilborneOne! We'll see who gets there first! - Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency on Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752

So, when you reverted my edit here on Wikipedia, you said in the edit summary that the shootdown was not an accident. But when you reverted this edit here, you said in the edit summary that the shootdown was an accident. Does an aviation shootdown count as an accident or not? I am confused here.

Clarification (again) is appreciated. Thank you. Why can't I edit Userpedia? (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounded inconsistent. The second edit labelled the event "mass murder", which is obviously not the case. The shoot down was a mistake on the part of the IRGC, who thought they were shooting at incoming attacking aircraft, they didn't intend to shoot down an airliner. In launching the two missiles they intended to kill someone, but not the airliner crew and passengers. As far as the airline itself is concerned it isn't treated like your garden variety aviation accident, as it was not the failure of an aircraft part, system or crew; there was nothing the airline could have done to prevent it other than "not fly" and so it is not comparable to other aviation accidents for cause or prevention. The main reason for removing your addition, however, was WP:AVILAYOUT-WW, as we have a consensus not to make those sort of comparisons. - Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

you're welcome

You thanked me for something in 2017 (thanks log: ) whatever it was, you're welcome. Earlier in '10s I got discouraged with Wikipedia, so the thanks helped, but I doubt I'll ever feel the same as I did about Wikipedia about as when it began... on various articles not always fitting popular knowledge/views, there was so much edit-warring the mediation group gave up so I had to also... still the case, except I'm almost sure I'll be back occasionally/rarely trying to edit only other articles than those. I hope you will also, but a lot of people left in the '10s (including many I knew.)--dchmelik (t|c)

Thanks for your note. I am glad my "thank you" acted as some sort of encouragement, which was my intention. Wikipedia can be a frustrating milieu to work in, but it can be very rewarding, too. Fifteen years later and with almost 3,000 new articles started, I am still at it. In many ways my secret to lasting here has been to work in small niche areas that no one else seems to care about. You can have a lot of free reign to work here as long as you stay away from controversial subjects and write about arctic lichens or similar areas that few people care to create conflicts or drama over. I hope to see you around when you are here writing! - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Animated GIF of Ubuntu desktop

You reverted my edit of Ubuntu allegedly because the animated GIF violates WP:IUP#ANIM which says: "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size". Here is a comparison of the current static screenshot (PNG) and the animated GIF as they are displayed in the infobox:

• Desktop Ubuntu 20.04.png at 320 px width - 37960 bytes
• Ubuntu 20.04 Desktop animated GIF.gif at 320 px width - 50590 bytes

I'd say that my edit did not increase considerately the size of the screenshot image. On the other side, the GIF demonstrates the look of Ubuntu desktop much better. -- Rprpr (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, it is also horribly distracting to readers and adds nothing comprehensible in thumbnail format. As WP:IUP#ANIM says "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred". If you really think it needs to be considered for inclusion, then as per WP:BRD please start a discussion on Talk:Ubuntu. - Ahunt (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't remember, my brain's in a blender, it's jello

Hi Adam, do remember the guideline/essay that recommends not cross-examining every iVote in discussions? I think you added it recently to a discussion where that was happening, but I can't remember where. It's happening again in another discussion, and I'd like to use it if my iVote is cross examined. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Possibly WP:BLUDGEON.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That's it! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for wading in! Could also cite Wikipedia:Harassment. - Ahunt (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Bludgeon is the one I wanted, as it focuses on discussions. - BilCat (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to all the bludgeons you like ... - Ahunt (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thankfully, it closed without becoming an big issue. - BilCat (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Aircraft specs

Thank you for checking some of my aircraft specs template conversions! I saw that you reverted at Aces High Cuby, I believe due to me leaving a lot of parameters and comments relating to the old template. I have now added more checks and there should only be used parameters for the new template left. I have also been checking every edit in preview to make sure no errors are triggered and all information is retained. Finally I saw that you removed a lot of duplicate parameters when the same figure was given in several units. I'm a bit weary to do this since I don't want to introduce more rounding errors and therefore have been keeping both so it is fateful to how it looked before. I hope this explains some of the choices I've made and I'm looking forward to hearing from you if you have any feedback. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note here and for your thoughtful reply. Thanks for fixing things, too. Replacing templates is all a learning process. My own approach in replacing those same templates in some other articles has been to copy in the new template and then re-source the specs from the original refs from scratch. It is more work that way, but eliminates the rounding errors, original transcription errors, plus cleans out any unsourced specs that may have been added, but your current approach seems to be working fine, now too. It would be nice to have a bot that could do this! - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

That's why the transclusion numbers are so much lower! A bot sure would be nice but sadly not plausible. I tried about a year ago putting down a lot of work trying to get a bot to either convert a template or recognize that it should be left for humans. For all the tests I did there were always times when it would fail because of different formatting or it would be way too restrictive only being able to deal with a few percent of cases. My current AWB based setup will probably be the quickest way to do it while ensuring no information is lost. Your approach is probably the best in the really weird or difficult cases though or when something looks fishy. --Trialpears (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"Erroneously"

I'm likely in the wrong here, since I'm pretty new to Wiki editing. But, it's pretty well established by multiple sources that the Wright brothers did not initially use a catapult to launch their aircraft, and only added one in 1904. This contradicts the archived source used to make the point that Dumont launched the first aircraft without catapult on the "Airplane" Wiki page, which led me to add the word "erroneously". Is there any other way to make this clear that is acceptable? PaKYr (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please take it to Talk:Airplane and make a case there for more general discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yeah, the Dumont section needs to be thoroughly checked to make sure that the cited sources are reliable, and that the paragraph only states what is actually in those sources. The pro-Dumont lobby often adds unsourced original research and opinion, so those sections have to be watched carefully. It's an odd situation since most of the competing claims for first flights are said to have occurred before the Wright Brothers' first flights. Strangely, the Dumont lobby only focuses on the Wrights, and trying to prove their flights weren't "real" flights. - BilCat (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for providing the ref for the CH-148 article. I'm still amazed that people just don't seem to grasp the concept of sourcing their additions. - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Well we have only been at it for 18 years, flat learning curve! That was an easy one, as I saw it go by on CBC news the day before! - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

hmmm

there's something smellier about this place over time... but thankfully there are some parts that still seem relatively innocent or not in the focus of fish and turkeys JarrahTree 12:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you. Something new going on there? - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

nothing in one sense - covid has seen to that - nothing worth blathering about on wiki... JarrahTree 12:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Drop me a note at wikieditor07.sca9z@ncf.ca if you feel like it! - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Western Global Airlines

Why were the edits to the page listed as spam when all of the things removed pointed to external sources as well as internal sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer.Badr (talk • contribs)

Your additions were all to add tons of external links to your own company website. That is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please read WP:SPAM to understand why not.

You obviously work for the company that is the subject of the article so are in a conflict of interest. You really nee to read WP:COI, declare your conflict of interest, stop editing the article and instead make suggestions on the article talk page for changes that can be assessed by neutral editors for inclusion or not. - Ahunt (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have posted a warning and some policy links on User talk:Jennifer.Badr, also a note on the article talk page. Hopefully the message will sink in and all will now proceed with due decorum. I'm off to bed now (other side of the pond), but if edit warring occurs again over the next few hours, you'd be justified in going straight to WP:ANI/EW. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the warnings left there. Still afternoon here, so I will keep an eye on it and request a block if needed. - Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Drone picture image

I'm not sure if you see replies to messages that you leave on other people's talk pages, but I think that image I added enriches the article. I took that picture 4 years ago and am not promoting anything.

Brad Thomas Hanks (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this, no, it added nothing to the article and had your name as a credit all over it, which is why I removed it. If you think it needs to be included then please make a case on the article talk page and see if other editors support including it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Reading comprehension

Hi Adam, you might look at the history of German Aerospace Center for the past few days. More examples of users not reading and understanding simple sources! Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep that needs to be reported to the Bundesministerium der Dummheit! - Ahunt (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

LOL! - BilCat (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of which, you may not have connected the dots between the spamming on STOL and the creation of Draft:Airflow (company). Might be good to watch where that one goes. - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't seen that one yet. I'm not sure what the restrictions on COIs creating drafts are, if it's the same as editing articles or not. I'll ask around. - BilCat (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I asked User:Diannaa about it. The draft also contains some verbatim copies of another website, and she's the copyvio Wikiguru. - BilCat (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Well I tagged the draft as COI and also the company rep who started it, too. Right now it is just flagrant promotion so it isn't going anywhere like that. I read all the background on it: it is four guys with a website and a model aircraft, trying to raise $200M in venture capital. No products, no location, nothing notable there. If they build a prototype and fly it then it should have an article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

...and it up for speedy deletion as a copyright vio. - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another editor just tagged it as a copvio, which of course aren't permitted anywhere on Wikipedia, even in draft- or user-space. - BilCat (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It has now been refused "speedy", cut down and basically left for dead. I guess we'll see how it develops over time. - Ahunt (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyrighted images specifically in the context of web browser logos

I am very confused by your removal of the MS Edge logo on the userbox I created. Pretty much every browser logo watermark (the Google Chrome logo as one big one) is allowed in userboxes, even the older Microsoft Edge logo is allowed. Why is the newer logo for the Chromium version of the browser not allowed? I am very confused by this. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 01:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. You have to check the exact licence for any logo you want to use in a userbox as you can only use freely licenced images, not copyright images. For example the logo for Edge that you wanted to use File:Microsoft Edge logo (2019).svg is all rights reserved, due it is compexity, whereas for instance the old logo you substituted File:Microsoft Edge logo (2015–2019).svg is licenced "This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." The same applies for the Chrome logo, File:Google Chrome icon (September 2014).svg which says, "This image of simple geometry is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." - Ahunt (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

SAC Article

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for the re-edit and adding in the explanation. Sorry, im just trying to get my bearings.DarkerDai (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)