User talk:Anachronist

Please use my talk page rather than emailing me.

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here.

Put new messages at the bottom. I will not notice them at the top.

Thanks for your help on "Click Bait"

Your trying to help is appreciated.

However when you resized the image the text (within the image) became unreadable.

What is needed is someone who knows Adobe Photoshop. They can use it to "cut" the 3 photos apart and stack them vertically. Then they can be resized larger (allowing the text-within-the photos) to be readable-- without crowding the page (on the left-to-right level, as they have been doing).

Right now as a thumb they are very hard to read (the part of the text that is part of the photos-- not the caption).

I used to know some Photoshop (but it was years ago) so I don't know if I can still do it. Maybe if I have time at some point, I'll try.

Thanks again, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 06:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chesapeake77: I made it a bit larger again. I disagree that a tall column of images would be an improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Anacronist I think you are right-- you found the right balance. I made it about 12% larger.

I agree that it now works horizontally.

Thanks for your help!

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Polarity therapy

Hi Anachronist. I thank you for reverting speedy deletion notification of this article. From day one I have been working to make Wikipediate a reliable informational source for general public. However, I observe some instances where some global editors unable to understand the policies are working in a way which delays Wikipedia growing to its true potential. The nomination of deletion of articles or redirects to page which only has few similarities with the original article are some such cases. Recently I wrote an article on Gynaecologist,which is relevant for students and it is redirected to Gynaecology which is relevant as subject. Additionally, India being a group of states, some common topics of interest with different places of administration need their presence in Wikipedia, which others are unable to understand. Like please have review on this article. Can you please guide me how in future I can avoid these instances. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist. Hope you are keeping well. I observe that the article Polarity theraphy again getting redirected. Can you please help me taking it to main space and in helping me to avoid these incidents. I see these are happening regularly wasting my time and disturbing me. Thanks again. Gardenkur (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You need to take it up with User:Alexbrn, the editor who redirected it. As you can see from the revision history, he worked on cleaning up the article for a while, removing material about medical information that wasn't cited to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, but he ended up with an article that wasn't much different from the article on Randolph Stone where the pertinent facts are already dealt with, so there was no need for a stand-alone article on the topic per WP:NOPAGE. In looking at the sequence of edits he made, I must say I agree. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gameknight999 has been accepted

Gameknight999, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder: Wow, that was quick. Only today I revised and re-submitted it (after a year of the draft languishing). Thanks! ~Anachronist (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Query

Hi, I Anachronist. I saw your participation in blacklisting discussion of qadrishattari.xyz. I was trying to improve Mustafa Raza Khan Qadri#Disciples and needed qadrishattari.xyz to improve it. It is becoming much difficult for me to find another sources to improve that long term unreferenced section. I believe qadrishattari.xyz will be helpful for that section. Dove's talk (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Defer to Whitelist to request using specific pages on the site. The discussion was pretty clear that blacklisting is necessary and that the site is unreliable. I suggest you start a discussion on WP:RSN before making a whitelist request. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Dietary acid load

Hello, I appreciate your efforts to improve NPOV with the alkaline diet. A new article Dietary acid load has been created. Please improve it. Maffty (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Said new article is a POV fork, and synthesis. 'Improvement' only requires deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Requesting REVDEL for Ahom kingdom

Could you please fulfil the REVDEL request for Ahom kingdom? This is related to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=134307808. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Someone already did it.

It's curious, however, that I can still see the diffs using popups, even though the diffs don't appear if I try to load one into a page. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Sdrqaz did it. And thanks for checking. I do not use popups so did not notice. Could this be corrected? Chaipau (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: No need to correct it; apparently it's intentional. I just tried it from my alternate non-administrator account and popups wouldn't show it. It must be a feature available to administrators. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Request

Hi. Could you undelete Draft talk:Blade (2023 film)? That page should not have been deleted along with Draft talk:Blade (upcoming film). Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Magnesium torch

Hi Anachronist, when you recently created the article stub Magnesium torch you did not include any references. Please fix. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: As you may have noticed in my edit summary of the first edit of that article, this topic pre-dates the world wide web by about 40 years and online sources have proven difficult to find beyond the mentions in the external links I included. The situation is further harmed by the British habit of using the word "torch" to refer to a flashlight, so any searches for "magnesium torch" these days turn up information about flashlights with magnesium alloy cases. I do recall a Jacques Cousteau episode in which these torches were prominantly featured and described in a deep-sea dive but I have not been able to find it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not read your edit summary until after leaving you the message, as I assumed you would have done some WP:BEFORE research and had forgotten to add the refs. I managed to find enough on the internet to expand the article a bit with some references. I am confident that the topic is sufficiently notable, mainly because of the other uses, but may not be able to prove it beyond doubt to some of our more zealous deletionists. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Happy Twelfth Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Anachronist a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your help with Skeeter Reece. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Brandon Lee

Thank you for decision. While I don't think I have anything to add to the article currently, i was criticized for not having formatted the citation identically. I may or may not do it in the future. Not being aware of PCP rules would I still be able to edit the article or a select group of people like high ranked editors would be.

I do think the PCP is the right thing to do since it will stop a mentally unstable individual to post cruel stuff regarding a person who died tragically.

Since his father Bruce Lee also died young it attracts a lot of speculation. Furthermore, there are false reports about him being considered for roles in Mortal Kombat (1995) and The Matrix (1999). While the first is partly true the second is false. I wish I had archived the interviews by the directors of both films when they were online. While this is annoying I can live with it.

I'd love to have some advanced editor rechecking his death section one day, but otherwise the rest is documented to best of my ability.

Thank you Filmman3000 (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Filmman3000: Pending-change protection still allows anyone to edit, but the edits of anonymous IP addresses and unconfirmed accounts are not published until a reviewer approves the edit or reverts the change. Everyone viewing the page sees the version prior to the edit that needed approval. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me well done. Thank you.Filmman3000 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Alicedimicele

Hi Anachronist. Since you're already trying to help out Alicedimicele and since you're an admin, I thought you'd be a good person to ask about this. Do you think WP:REALNAME comes into play here. I've seen accounts soft-blocked in similar situations. Do you think it would be overkill at this point to suggest that Alicedimicele have their identity VRT verified if they're going to continue discussing things on the article talk page or at the AfD discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging UtherSRG as courtesy since they are also trying to help Alicedimicele and are also an admin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be prudent to have VRT involved. However, I would suggest someone who has significant understanding of WP:REALNAME and the VRT approach her for doing this. That would not be me, nor do I know who would. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it matters only if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Di Micele is closed as "keep". In my opinion it should be moved to draft for improvement. Based on that account's contributions and interaction with the community, I am assuming good faith that the account is who she represents herself to be. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:REALNAME isn't about not assuming good faith, but is a protection both for both sides of the equation. I concur, though, that it would only be important if the article gets kept, and that it is hard to believe that she isn't who she says she is. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

At this point I think it would be counterproductive to block the account as impersonation for "protection". I'm an occasional VRT agent. VRT doesn't always need to be involved, though. If she can be asked to put an identifying statement on her own web site, like "My Wikipedia account is Alicedimecele", then that would be enough for anyone to verify. In fact, a VRT agent often does just that, asking the person for a temporary change to an online page that they control, like including the ticket number on a Facebook page or personal web site. That is actually preferable to them sending a copy of their government identification, which includes way more personal information than a VRT agent wants to see. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh! That's cool! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't post here to try and get Alicedimicele soft-blocked. I've got no reason not to believe that they aren't the subject of the article; at the same, time though, there's no way for anyone to verify they really are the subject of the article. Normally, when I come across something like this, I add a {{uw-username}} or {{uw-coi-username}} warning template to the user talk page and a follow up post just to let the person know about WP:REALNAME. Whether they verify their identity via VRT or in some other way is up to them and many probably do not. If Alicedimicele refrains from editing any content about themselves anywhere on Wikipedia, the user name and their identity will most likely not be an issue. If, on the other hand, they start making edit requests or even try to directly edit such content, it would be much better for them to at least WP:DECLARECOI on their user page with and added VRT verification being a good idea. If they don't even bother to declare their COI, they will be most likely reminded of their WP:APPARENTCOI each time they try to edit content about themselves, and could eventually end up being soft-blocked if their editing starts too frequent or too problematic. Anyway, thank you both for looking at this. I'm happy to leave things as is for now since there doesn't seem to be any problems so far. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: If it comes to that, it may interest you to know (and I just learned this a month ago) that administrators now have the ability to impose a "partial block", meaning that an editor is blocked from editing specific articles. If COI editing becomes a problem, this is a solution that allows the single-purpose account to work elsewhere. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's hope nobody ends up even being partially blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist and @UtherSRG: Would one of you mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Alice Di Micele? It looks like someone named Lisiunia tried to post a "keep" !vote there. I'm also going to be a honest in that Lisiuna contributions history has me someone suspicious that this might be a case of WP:DUCK or WP:MEAT. The account was created in February 2011, makes a series of edits to Body piercing, and then stops editing for more than seven years before making two edits in March 2018. The account stops editing again until it shows up a few days ago before starting to edit Alice Di Micele. It sure seems odd that this account would show up out of the blue like this as just a coincidence and maybe a SPI/CU would be a good idea here. Most of edits made by Lisiuna are unsourced and full of puffery, and have actually created more issues that need fixing. It's possible some of the sources pointed out in the AfD could lead to the article being kept, but I think the recent contributions by Lisiuna haven't been too helpful. I could just be taking too harsh of a view of things here, but the editing does seem suspicious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Sockpuppet of whom? If you have a suspicion, then file a case at WP:SPI. I doubt it's the subject; she has her own account, no reason to create another (and the account creations suggest they aren't the same anyway). Maybe a case of meatpuppetry. While I find the sudden interest suspicious too, the edits have been mostly OK. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It seemed possible to me that Lisiunia and Alicedimicele might be connected and were created by the same person; perhaps created at different times for different reasons, but now they're crossing paths because of the AfD. It could just be a coincidence for sure, but it seems odd for an account that hasn't edited in a number of years to show up like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what to do here. I do think some of the edits are questionable, such as changing Origin in the info box from Elizabeth to Ashland. Looks like you've fixed up some of it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

ref quotes at FBI search of Mar-a-Lago

Hey, apologies for deleting the in-depth quotes associated with those two different references. I've gotten flack from other editors in the past, for adding lengthy quotes like that.

I wonder if significant quotes (especially the one from the CNN source) should be turned into notes, instead? Might help prevent future deletion, by someone doing what I just did, heh. I'm not sure what the proper usage is of notes, but seems appropriate maybe? Thoughts? 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I know you were editing in good faith, which is why I didn't revert you all the way back. I like the idea of a "notes" section, if it can be made to work. Other lengthy articles do that for controversial topics, such as Intelligent Design. The notes include quotations as well as links to references. The references, oddly, also include quotations. I think it depends where the quotation provides the best context. In references a quotation is used to prove what is being stated in the article. A notes section would be used to provide added context. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Henry David Abraham

Your editing note "fails to verify what is claimed"[1] for the cited source C-Span really has me wondering what I don't know. Since when must references "verify what is claimed"? Your rm of that source caused the entire section to be deleted and it was a COI edit request by the subject of the article. Of course I am not going to use references from the subject's own webpage for that but now I'm really confused about this "failed to verify" thing? I reposted the section on the article talk page. Thank you TeeVeeed (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@TeeVeeed: The statement "In 1985 Abraham was a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize" was cited to that C-SPAN video, and I could not see anywhere in the video that being a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize was mentioned. Therefore, it failed to serve the purpose of a citation; that is, to verify what is claimed in the article. Unless there are secondary sources, independent of David Abraham (that means, not an interview) can verify he's a co-recipient of the prize, then we cannot mention it in the article. We can mention it with attribution, something like "Abraham's web site lists the Nobel Peace Prize as an award that he received with other recipients". That way, we are not saying he received the prize in Wikipedia's voice, we would just be saying that he claims this.

The most I can verify is that an organization won the Peace Prize, and he is associated with that organaztion, but it is not clear that he is a co-founder (the org web site doesn't mention his name) or that he was even a member when the organization won the prize. The section was removed for that reason. The WP:BLP policy prohibits us from making statements about a person that cannot be verified by independent sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, thank you for help.Cwater1 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall what I did, but thank you. Let me know if there's anything you need. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you reply to a talk page that I was in.Cwater1 (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Revert on criticism of Muhammad.

Sir, I understand that this was not a point/counterpoint article. but I think there should be at least views from the other side with regards to criticism. If this is not possible, so since there is an article for criticisms, can an article be created for the argument of the muslims with regards to criticism in a purely non-assertive manner. Will Wikipedia allow me, an autoconfirmed user to do that???.

I just think this is really important and relevant for the readers of our time. Its just that many Jewish and Christians friends of mine all point to Wikipedia for these sort of information which leads to misconceptions, unintended heated arguments and well, hostility. I think we should really provide the respective views of all sides in a prudent way. Izan Mehdi. (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Izan Mehdi.: We have criticism articles on a variety of subjects, including criticism of Jesus, criticism of Judaism, criticism of Donald Trump, and so forth. They are not platforms for describing debates between sides, they are articles about criticism.

You are welcome to try to create an article about counter-arguments, but I suggest you create it in draft space and submit it for review, titled something like Draft:Muslim responses to criticism (which can be responses to criticism about Islam and the Quran, not just about Muhammad) and submit it for review.

Be careful not to offer interpretations that don't come from recognized scholars. Because you cited mostly primary or anonymous/self-published sources and not secondary reliable sources, it is unlikely that an article would be accepted with the citations you used. You are welcome to try, and I am happy to look at it when the draft is ready. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you sir. But do the counter-arguments of Islam, Quran or Muhammad have to be in a same article. I mean can they be different like the different pages of criticism of Islam or Muhammad. Izan Mehdi. (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

They don't have to be in the same article, but they can be. If there are enough reliable secondary sources about a topic, then the topic can have a standaline article. In the case of criticism, there is so much information about criticism of Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam, that a single article combining them would be too large and unwieldy. Sometimes a criticism may be levied by numerous notable people through the ages, and a response might be a single response that addresses them all. If responses to these criticisms are brief or overlap, then one article would be sufficient.

Again, I am not confident that such an article would pass review unless it was really well sourced. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Hedgepeth-Williams article (Teahouse discussion)

Hi, I saw your reply to my note on the Teahouse about handling the old version of Hedgepeth and Williams v. Board of Education as well as my revisions in my personal sandbox. Would it be possible to move my sandbox revisions over the existing title? (Sorry for the delay, I've been tied up with work recently!) –Galactic-Radiance (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Galactic-Radiance: Done! You mentioned that the previous version was a copyvio. Moving your draft deleted the previous version, and I did not restore those old revisions. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jack_Mizzi

First of all thanks for your thorough review.

I took on board all the suggestions and endeavoured to remove a multitude of headings. I grouped by year and I believe the text is more readable, now because yes it was clunky to read. I added headings for the most important tournaments.

All the tournaments listed are important. To the Maltese chess reader, any international tournament will have importance, and with the exception of 2 (Poland and Sicily) he was representing Malta as a result of being the junior champion in his category since 2017. There are many more tournaments that he played and I did not include, Jack has played in excess of 100 tournaments. The other tournaments are either part of the championship cycle: preliminaries, candidates and final stage, or European championships, or International such as the last 4. If I remove those, where he did not do well I may be accused that I used the tournaments where he did well only, but of course if you mention specific tournaments I should leave out, I will comply.

With regards to chess-results, that is the de facto website that stores chess results and even FIDE relies on it. Chess tournaments are organised using Swiss Manager and chess-results is the accompanying website. (Even the Chess Olympiads are published on chess results). The tournaments in Poland and Sicily were the exception since they had different systems. The whole idea why I added the references was that there is evidence to the results. The chess reader would normally be intrigued to read more and get to know about the opponents, and chess-results is normally the go-to place. ATM622 (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Wrong information

This is a misleading information on wiki surprised to see on here which is wrong and they are not even Muslim please remove this misleading information from wiki thanks 81.79.189.84 (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to. If you have a problem with an article, take it up on that article's talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative

Could you please respond to my comment here? Generalrelative has removed my reply to you from that article's talk page, based on the false premise that it is a topic ban violation [2] (the actual area of my topic ban is "race and intelligence broadly construed", which I don't think applies to any of the articles mentioned in my comment). But he tends to only remove others' comments from article talk pages and from noticeboards, not from other editors' user talk pages, so we presumably can still have this discussion here in your user talk. 2600:1004:B102:3157:19F1:799:70D7:C775 (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Per this discussion at ANI, the IP user is well aware that their "broadly construed" topic ban extends to both "race" and "intelligence" and not just the conjunction of the two topics. The discussion at Talk:Stephen Jay Gould is quite obviously about intelligence testing, and about a figure (Arthur Jensen) closely associated with the race and intelligence topic area. If it weren't for the potential collateral, this user would have been site banned long ago. For that reason I would advise you to WP:DENY recognition. Generalrelative (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Anachronist: I'm disappointed by how this situation is escalating, but now that that seems to be the case, I also should direct you to the discussion here, along with the off-Wiki discussions that I linked to there. What I described in my comment there is the central issue.

Also, I want to be totally clear about something: although the banned user Deleet is ultimately responsible for this situation, I am not accusing Generalrelative of deliberately collaborating with that banned user. 2600:1004:B102:3157:19F1:799:70D7:C775 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I have added back in a phrase based on the suggestions in prior discussion. If you are circumventing a topic ban, I suggest you withdraw from this. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Skeeter Reece Photos

@Anachronist and Grabergs Graa Sang: Thank you for your help. I will messaage the photographer again and copy and paste those links you gave me, again. He did say he had a lot of trouble. He was trying to do it on his phone. I have also found that the phone does not work as well as the regular computer. We will give it another shot. Thank you for all your patience. I am learning. Mamadancer (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mamadancer: I use my phone sometimes to read Wikipedia, but I would never try to do any sort of submission through it. You really need a laptop to be effective, not only editing Wikipedia, but submitting photo permissions. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Shh, Cullen might hear you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time we have disagreed![3] ~Anachronist (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist@Gråbergs Gråa Sång You gave me a ticket number and said there was only one photo there. That ticket number meant nothing to Owen. And he said he had copied and pasted the two photos in the email he sent. He is confused as to why you found only one.

Sorry this is such a mess to figure out. And thank you so much for doing it!! Mamadancer (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I messaged Owen Carey again. He said he sent for link for both of the pictures at once. He copied and pasted it together and sent it in an email-about both B& W images. He said he got a form letter response. Mamadancer (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I replied to him in the ticket asking for confirmation that he intended for the declaration of consent to include both images. As it stands now, it's good for only one of them. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow!! Great! Maybe this will work, then. Thank you again!! Mamadancer (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Lagarde Criminal Conviction

You have incorrectly removed my edit. Your note on my talk page is factually inaccurate, as you will discover if you read the source in question. JonQalg (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)