User talk:Bradv

---

Messages

---

• Please help keep discussions together.

• If I left you a message on your talk page, please reply there (and ping me}.
• If you leave me a message on my talk page, I will answer here.
• If you have already started a conversation on this page, please reply there.

Click here to begin a new topic

• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• View or search the archives for old messages.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

---

Links

---

• Quick directory
• Department directory
• Community Portal
• Maintenance
• Requests
• Tips
• Tools

---

Need Help?

---

• The Teahouse
• Articles for Creation Help Desk

---

Policies and Guidelines

---

Deletion of "If They Only Knew"

If They Only Knew (Trip Lee album) was deleted per PROD. I was not aware that it had been tagged with that, or I would have rescued it. Could you un-delete and tag me so that I can rescue the article with some sources?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

3family6,  Done. I've restored the article as-is, but I think it may be best off as a redirect to Trip Lee unless suitable sourcing can be found per WP:NALBUM. Cheers. – bradv🍁 00:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do, it might indeed need to be a redirect.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Abd al-Masih Haddad

If you would like to review Draft:Abd al-Masih Haddad, sources have been added inside. 92.184.102.192 (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a definite improvement - thanks for all your hard work! I'll let another reviewer look at it through the AfC process. – bradv🍁 00:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Block 120.29.73.66

I'm not vandalized because everything in the article is true and i read it and monitor. I watch on tv or full episodes i just based on the tv network whats all important. This user has reverted has not released by the network or full episodes or reliable sources. Barneysss (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 at Women in Red

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135 Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red... Online events: New: Law / Military history / Writers / Geofocus: defunct countries Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Missing articles about notable women by "nationality" vs. "country of citizenship" Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Speedy deletion issue

Hey Bradv, is it possible you could please temporarily recover my personal sandbox you speedily deleted? That way I can copy stuff over to somewhere else. I get that my sandbox was in violation of U5, and I apologize for that, but I’ve spent dozens, if not hundreds of hours maintaining it, and I do not appreciate that you deleted it without giving me any sort of heads up or warning. I have maintained it since 2014, and it seems odd that you just now decided it was causing a problem and should be deleted. I have some stuff backed up, but I was not expecting it to be randomly deleted, so I didn’t bother backing everything up. I can definitely store that stuff elsewhere in the future, but I feel like it would be nicer if you could give people a few days notice before deleting their stuff. I had not even heard of U5 before you mentioned it, and I would imagine that most Wikipedians are not familiar with all the intricacies of Wikipedia rules. Also, I don't get the hoax accusation, as I'm pretty sure I made it clear that all the fake weatherboxes were fictional (but I do get that you don't want me to use my sandbox as a sort of web host). So if you could please temporarily reactivate my sandbox so I can copy the data to a different site, that would be much appreciated. I’m sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. Thanks for reading. Sfoske70 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sfoske70, I've emailed you the contents of your sandbox. – bradv🍁 20:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much!Sfoske70 (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Message from Baba Wethu

For the same reason as Sfoske70 above me I'd appreciate it if you could email me the contents of my sandbox. I didn't realize that I was breaking any rules, but now that I know, I'd be very thankful to be able to save my sandbox that I'd invested so much time into, so that I could instead store it somewhere else that isn't on or affecting Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba Wethu (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Baba Wethu, sure. Can you please associate an email address with your account? You can do that by clicking Preferences at the top of your screen, and selecting "Allow other users to email me". Once you've done that let me know and I'll email you the deleted contents. – bradv🍁 00:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I've done what you asked.

Thank you Baba Wethu (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Baba Wethu, I've emailed you the contents of the latest revision of your sandbox. – bradv🍁 01:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Message from Dmehus

Hi again, Bradv,

I was attempting to revert the iHeartRadio Canada page name to its pre-May 2019 page name of Bell Media Radio prior to a WP:BRD move made by ViperSnake151 which, while encouraged, I reverted in early August 2019. I guess I misunderstood a portion of Wikipedia:Page_mover as I thought either all auto-confirmed or extended-confirmed users, of which I see that I am, had page mover privileges and/or by moving it to the Draft namespace, redirects weren't left. Thus, if you navigate to Draft:Move/Bell Media Radio, you'll see my draft. You can see I understand the process, but my misunderstanding was in terms of what is required not to leave a redirect in place. Nonetheless, I've issued an RfC to gather community feedback on whether to change the page name as ViperSnake151 has attempted to do.

I don't have an issue with ViperSnake151 making bold moves, but when they're in dispute, he should not be undoing page moves a second time, no?

And secondly, can you kindly complete my round-robin page swap that I'm not permissioned to do?

Cheers,
Doug Mehus (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, it looks your move was already reverted, but I did manage to clean up the double redirect. I recommend opening a WP:RM on this topic so that others have an opportunity to weigh in, as this is going to be contentious. Please see the instructions at WP:RM#CM. – bradv🍁 01:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bradv, for the quick reply. Yeah, I saw you fixed the double redirects. Thanks. I still see Draft:Bell Media Radio and Draft:Move/Bell Media Radio, though. Any way you can speedily delete those redirect pages I created in error (due to lacking permissions)? Also, I can open an WP:RM as well, and thought about doing that but wasn't sure if I had to wait for the RfC to conclude, except I wanted to revert the name as BarrelProof did to one of my edits when I had moved Canadian Tire Financial Services to Canadian Tire Services boldly prior to initiating an WP:RM. Any way you can kindly revert it to Bell Media Radio (that's what it was before ViperSnake151 initiated his first bold edit) before I initiate an WP:RM? Doug Mehus (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, he moved it in May though. While it was undiscussed, it also was not recent enough to justify overturning, and it certainly can wait another week for an RM to run its course. – bradv🍁 02:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, aww, drats. He must have page mover privileges to be able to have reverted my page move without leaving a redirect, correct? Is there a parallel process I should be moving with the administrators vis-a-vis potential abuse of such privileges by reverting my early August 2019 reversion (in dispute) of his May 2019 bold move?

Separately, what's the best process for me to delete those draft redirects I created in error? Doug Mehus (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, I've deleted the leftover redirects. Next time something like this comes up, you can make a request at WP:RM#TR for help from an admin or page mover. – bradv🍁 02:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, thanks for doing that, and for clarifying this is an example of when to use the uncontroversial technical requests. Doug Mehus (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RE: Speedy Deletion of Sandbox

Likewise Baba Wethu and Sfoske70 not far-preceding me, may I receive the contents of my deleted sandbox via email? I have spent myriads of hours on that particular page, and cannot lose it so lightly. However, I shall not re-establish the aforementioned content on Wikipedia; I merely wish for it to remain within my personal grasp, nothing more. — Jovial regards

Please send the content to this particular email address: (Redacted) Frey Locksley (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Frey Locksley, please associate an email address with your account rather than posting it here. You can do that by clicking Preferences at the top of your screen, and selecting "Allow other users to email me". Once you've done that let me know and email you the contents of your sandbox. – bradv🍁 12:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Frey Locksley, I've emailed you the contents of your sandbox. – bradv🍁 18:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Skytrax

There is no content dispute. There is persistent removal of sourced content by a single-purpose account and its sockpuppets. FPP is way OTT. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Especially now that the vandal/sockpuppeteer has been blocked. The page should at least be returned to the unvandalised version. Thanks. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Lard Almighty, point taken. I didn't realize they were sockpuppets, as they were blocked just after I applied protection. I saw multiple users trying to delete poorly sourced criticism from the lead, and experienced users reverting without explanation or discussion on the talk page. Now that I've checked more of the sources on the page, it looks more like an attempt at corporate whitewashing. I'll release the protection. – bradv🍁 14:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bradv. This happens from time to time on this article. I agree that there are issues about the criticism, but questions have been raised about Skytrax' methodology and practices and that should be reflected in the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Skytrax needs a template fix

Hi Bradv. At the head of the Skytrax page, the {{Disputed}} template isn't closed correctly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Message from Dmehus

Hi Brad,

I just noticed that, surprisingly, there was no pending move or merger proposal on National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency especially since the combined agency Canadian Environmental Regulator came into force, so consistent with Wikipedia:Merging, I proposed to move the latter into the former, with the resulting page renamed Canadian Environmental Regulator. It seems like I did that the correct way, but I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile for you to move protect those three pages, or at least the proposed as yet non-existent page to prevent inadvertent moving in advance of consensus? Doug Mehus (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, you may want to consider using the preview button before saving your edits. ;) It looks like you've done the merger proposal correctly from what I can see. But we don't protect pages preemptively, so unless there's actual disruption or move-warring there's no need for administrator action. – bradv🍁 16:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, thanks for clarifying that. I'll watch the pages for now and try testing out the Preview function (couldn't get it to work before). Doug Mehus (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, looks I jumped the gun, so I closed the merger discussion and initiated the first page move but didn't realize I was in Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency instead of National Energy Board. Can you rollback the change? I won't make any further edits till I hear back and then I can move Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to Impact Assessment Agency (Canada) (would that be consistent with the naming conventions, since it's likely that name will be used by other jurisdictions?) and National Energy Board to Canadian Energy Regulator? Doug Mehus (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, I have reverted the move. I would recommend using the RM process for these. We base our article titles on WP:COMMONNAME rather than WP:OFFICIALNAME, so just because something has changed names doesn't mean that's what Wikipedia will use. There's plenty of time for discussion. – bradv🍁 17:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, thanks a lot. I was trying to be proactive, but realized there's going to be a lot to update when you consider the new regulator is now based in Calgary, Alberta. Then, I'm wondering, maybe the existing articles are worthy of keeping and coding as defunct, with successor agency links? Better to propose a move discussion, which I'll do. Plus, it lets me off the hook on doing the move. ;) Doug Mehus (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, okay, got that all fixed up, so the community can discuss what they want to do (i.e., create new article, or rename, in the case of the National Energy Board, and decide on what name to use in the case of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. I noticed the #redirect page for my inadvertently created Canadian Energy Regulator still exists, though. Would you mind speedily deleting that for me, so that when the community decides to make the move or create a new page, it's available? I doubt anyone besides yourself and me has visited that redirect page. ;)Doug Mehus (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, I wouldn't delete the leftover page, I would turn it into a redirect. It's a plausible search term. – bradv🍁 18:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, True, but then the link is blue, which may discourage or scare people away from using that name. It was my bad for not checking the URL of the page I was on when I initially made that premature page move. If I hadn't done that, it wouldn't have existed. Would certainly appreciate re-consideration to deleting it. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi Bradv,

Could you please email me the contents of my recently deleted page (Candle421)? I've had that since 2011 or 2012 and spent much time creating the contents of it and wasn't expecting a deletion without warning.

Much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candle421 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Candle421, done. – bradv🍁 02:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Why every edit i made in Wikipedia since becoming active again has been reverted? (Akmaie Ajam)

Hello, Bradv. Why you revert my edits? All my edits have been reverted by various users. Why? Why Bradv? (Forwarded to every user that reverted my edits since becoming active again) Please help me on editing so my edits don't get reverted.

This is Akmaie Ajam. Please answer this. Thanks. Akmaie Ajam (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Akmaie Ajam, you made one edit to an article in the last 2 months, where you tried to change Indian Ocean to use American spelling. This was explained in the subsequent edit summary. What else do you need help with? – bradv🍁 15:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I need help with editing so i can edit pages without getting the edits reverted. Akmaie Ajam (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Belated congratulations

So sorry I missed your RfA! Glad you got bullied into finally joined the team, a very welcome addition. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer, thanks! Always good to see you on my talk page. – bradv🍁 21:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC

A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Sanctions on Iran-Israel conflict

Hi Bradv, i'm assuming you are acting in good faith but less familiar with the Middle East modern history - please note that Iranian-Israeli conflict is different than Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact Israel is in alliance with major Arab League nations against Iran. The Iran-Israel proxy conflict articles may be tagged under Syrian Civil War & ISIL sanctions (if related with Iran-Israel standoff during Syrian conflict) or as WP:GS/78IRP (non-Syrian locations of standoff between Israel and Iran - such as in Lebanon and Iraq). Iran is not an Arab country, though does have several proxy Shia militias which act against Arab powers in the Gulf and against Israel and this has been specifically excluded from Arab-Israeli conflict topic in 2013 and several times since. This is relevant to 2019 Beirut drone attack and 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq.GreyShark (dibra) 14:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Greyshark09, I'm aware that Iran is not considered one of the Arab countries. But Lebanon and Iraq are both members of the Arab League, and therefore these articles are clearly covered under this DS topic area. – bradv🍁 17:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The incidents in Lebanon and Iraq didn't include neither Lebanese nor Iraqi Army, but Iranian proxy militias. It had no confirmation from Israel either; in Lebanese case the blame was for "Israeli agents in Lebanon", who would be... Arab...GreyShark (dibra) 18:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Greyshark09, Lebanon is a Arab country and Hezbollah is Arab Shiite terrorist organisation hence its clearly part of the conflict Shrike (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Just putting it here Bahrain unsurprisingly supports Israeli aggression. Things changed. The Arab-Israeli conflict is long over. Arab League main Sunni members went into Alliance with Israel against Iran. Hezbollah doesn't represent the Arab League, it is abbreviated terrorist by Arab League leaders [1]. GreyShark (dibra) 19:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear to me that an article about an attack allegedly perpetrated by Israel, in an Arab country, falls within "All Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are subject to discretionary sanctions". – bradv🍁 19:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:AE appeal by Icewhiz

Hello, Icewhiz has appealed your WP:AE decision. I helped them copy the request. This is to notify you: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Icewhiz. starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Was

this requested by the arbitrators? ∯WBG^converse 15:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, is there a problem with it? – bradv🍁 15:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

How on Earth, is that an answer to my query? ∯WBG^converse 15:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there's a problem with posting messages like that. Was it your own folly or were you ordered to post it. Whoever's idea this was, they should be proud of their work and claim it. Jehochman ^Talk 02:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, yes, I wrote it. What's the problem? – bradv🍁 02:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It is perhaps a bit undiplomatic. In the present circumstances where people are really upset about a perceived abuse of power, threatening them with arbitrary sanction if they speak out too much doesn't look good. Maybe you could edit the message to emphasize the need to be patient, civil and kind. If people don't get it then they can be given personal warnings. I'm not a fan of "cooling off" blocks. If somebody is upset it's better to ask why and listen than to block them and say they can come out of the naughty corner after they cool down. Jehochman ^Talk 02:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, it's not about suppressing dissent, it's about enforcing our civility and anti-harassment policies. It is within the clerks' remit to maintain order on arbitration pages, and this notice is in line with what we already post on arbitration case pages. I'm glad people have noticed what I added, and I hope it has the desired effect. – bradv🍁 03:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not going to cause a problem for me. I can be irritating in the extreme, but thankfully that's not sanctionable. Thank you for answering so nicely. I really appreciate it. Jehochman ^Talk 03:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Depends what your desired effect was. In my case, it has made me even more concerned that the current ArbCom is an incompetent kangaroo court with Stalinist tendencies. And the clerks are not much better - the original removal of my comment was (it turns out) a clerk action but the clerk didn't actually say so, their user pages doesn't mention them being a clerk etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Sitush, I'm fully aware that there exists a small group of vocal editors who are convinced that ArbCom can't do anything right and this group of arbitrators is The Worst, and there is no end to the hyperbole they are willing to use to make that point. They're entitled to their opinion, but WT:ACN needs to be a place where the committee's announcements can be discussed productively and in compliance with our civility and anti-harassment policies. That is the desired effect of the talk page notice. – bradv🍁 13:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

So why was Sandstein allowed to gravedance at ACN? It is that to which I was responding in the thread and L235 has acknowledged on their talk page that Sandstein's comment was in poor taste. It is clear from what I said on Cthomas's talk page, when I first reverted their (Cthomas's) removal, that I was unaware of Cthomas even being an ArbCom clerk, let alone doing what they did as a clerk action. - I did look at the edit summary and their user page beforehand but could see nothing. The whole thing is nonsensical and it is these sort of confusing signals from the committee and the clerks that are causing a lot of the angst. Just like they screwed up the 2FA announcment. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not noticed the message before. Now that I see it, I believe it could end right after "hostile", and should be signed. When people come grieving, the last thing they'd need is the threat of sanctions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of sandbox

Hello Bradv,

I have recently become aware that the contents of my Wikipedia sandbox were speedily deleted, along with many others. I was sadly not familiar with the portion of the rules that I was violating, and I have logged a lot of useful data in my sandbox that I would like to get back. Is there any chance that the contents of my sandbox could be emailed back to me? It would be greatly appreciated. I will not put the contents of the sandbox back up on Wikipedia, but simply use them for myself. Thanks for reading. Omegaraptor (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Omegaraptor, I have emailed you the contents of your sandbox. – bradv🍁 19:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

VM IBAN Violation

Hi, you seem to have missed it in the AE talk section of Francois, but VM also violated the IBAN, and more recently and from a more recent edit, not from a year ago. He reverted content added (or re-added) by Icewhiz last month ([2][3][4] → [5]) since you blocked Icewhiz for something he supposedly did from an edit from a years past, I thought you would want to know about a more blatant IBAN violation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I think an AE request for that would be in order. – bradv🍁 20:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Or you can just block him as you did Icewhiz. I don't like filing AE requests since admins take things out on me and if it's so egregious as per discretionary sanctions, you don't need an AE action, you can just block without it. DS does not requite an AE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, you stated in the current AE request: "I do find it troubling that Bradv just swooped it and blocked, especially in this area". Which is it? I take feedback such as this seriously, and I'd like to see how the discussion plays out first. – bradv🍁 20:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, I do find it troubling. So if you're not going to block because you're taking feedback seriously, then perhaps you should open the AE request. I won't do so because it would come off poorly, especially since VM opened an AE request against me for a stupid reason awhile back. I think that would be fair. You see a violation in his edits, but you don't want to swoop in and block, so you'll bring it to other admins to get more input. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, do you really think I want more of this? I got called pathetic, and told to get a fucking life. No thanks. This is why the topic area doesn't get enough attention from administrators. – bradv🍁 21:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, that's why you're an admin and I'm not. You don't have to block VM then, you can file an AE action and let others deal with it. But right now, the only two times I've seen you at AE, were bringing me and blocking Icewhiz. Becoming an admin comes with challenges and dealing with people calling you names is one of them and dealing with challenges is one of those things and I have faith you can overcome this challenge and do the right thing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I My block got called pathetic. ∯WBG^converse 15:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Advice

Howdy hello Bradv! I see that you have been around WP:3O from time to time, and I have much respect for your opinion, and thus would like to ask for some advice. I recently responded to a third opinion request on Talk:Walter_Russell#Third_opinion. From what I could see, the debate concerned WP:PSCI, and made some exceptional claims which weren't well backed up. One of the two editors in the original debate (User:WikipediansSweep) then responded by wall of texting me, and being pretty obstinate. So that's my question: how do I respond? Should I respond and keep trying to mediate the debate? Or have I said my piece and should simply leave? I don't want to waste my time arguing with a brick wall, but also don't want to abandon the discussion. Any advice would be much appreciated. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Lol this is funny and sad

Go check it out and do actual research on who Walter Russell was and who he influenced not only politically but scientifically, someones butt hurt lol WikipediansSweep (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)