User talk:Popcornduff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Leave a message!

Congratulations on the FA[edit]

Congratulations on getting the article to featured status. Just wanted to stop by and repeat my comment at the FAC: you're a top-quality writer, and it would be great to see more of your work there. Please do consider it! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That means a lot. And thanks for your help in the process. It was a learning experience. Popcornduff (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Roland TR-808 scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Roland TR-808 article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 17 October 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 17, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the "1980s drum machine that became one of the most influential musical instruments in popular music"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for reading! Popcornduff (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Street Fighter plot section[edit]

Hey! You tagged Street Fighter (1994 film) with a Too Long-tag for the plot section. Mind coming to the talk page to give some details on what should be trimmed so I can in turn start work on it? --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary is now under 700 words. Is it okay to remove the Too Long tag? --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Trainspotting plot section[edit]

Hey, you said to go to the talk page after a recent edit I made that reverted the changes you made on the Trainspotting plot section, so I've made an account in response. The original edit was perfectly fine, and the changes you made to it only served to bring in even more edits in order to clean up what you had started. Plus, I feel the original edit flows more nicely and introduces each character in a far better way. There was no need for the change in the first place. SickBoy1995 (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page, where other editors can see it. Popcornduff (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Dunkirk[edit]

Personally I did think that the sub-headings made the structure of the film more explicit, which some readers would have found helpful. I see however that you have removed them. However you have left some of the material in the plot section ordered in the way it was previously (for example the hiding in the trawler is very early in the summary) rather than the order in which it is seen in the film, which I suggest is the worst of both worlds? If we don't have the structure of the subsections then surely the article should attempt to lay out the plot line in the order in which events are seen in the film, as far as is possible (some events are seen multiple times)? MapReader (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

IMO, splitting the plot section into subsections introduces major problems:
  • It necessitates describing the same scenes several times (as seen from several perspectives). For the purposes of a summary, this is unnecessary.
  • It makes it difficult to keep the plot section to a reasonable length. As per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries should be under 700 words. Before I rewrote it, the summary was way over this. (edit: OK, checking, it was only 90ish words over.)
Of course, other editors might disagree. You might want to move this discussion to the article talk page where others can weigh in.
Events should obviously be told in the correct order, though. It was inevitable that I screwed it up, so by all means please shuffle them into the right order. Popcornduff (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Seeing Roland TR-808 as today's featured article was a nice surprise, it is a great piece of writing. Thanks a lot! – filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The Godfather III plot[edit]

Hand.jpg The Friendship Barnstar
Thank you Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 12:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Shin Godzilla#Concerning the removal of the staff section and music information[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shin Godzilla#Concerning the removal of the staff section and music information. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Popcornduff. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

Just wanted you to know I wasn't trying to step on any toes in the draft. Did this correction resolve the issue you were referring to? Or were you talking about the other part I reverted? Maybe I'm confused! --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Star Wars: The Force Awakens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Just wanted to thank you for your review on my FAC. I will definitely be more aware of concise language in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Song cover[edit]

Hi User:Popcornduff, would you be able to add artwork for the Breathe (Jax Jones song) infobox please? Theo (contribs) 11:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Icon at 2001[edit]

Appreciate your editing out that icon at 2001 in popular culture. By the way, after looking at the film article for Gone with the Wind, there seems to be a convention of including the Part one-Part two designations when these where done by the director himself. I mean if Kubrick wanted to show his film that way, then he had a reason for it. After you look at the Gone with the Wind film plot section you can let me know your thoughts for these designations. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they turn up in plot summaries sometimes. But I'm opposed to it because it doesn't add anything meaningful to a summary. It superficially respects the source material, but in a summary, labelling the different parts of the story changes nothing.
"I mean if Kubrick wanted to show his film that way, then he had a reason for it." There's presumably a reason why everything in a film is the way it is, including dialogue, sound effects, editing, blah blah. But our job here is to summarise, not slavishly describe every element of the film. Popcornduff (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've been thinking of moving the main article for this film towards featured article. Do you have any thoughts on possibly joining in on it? JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Panzer Dragoon Saga[edit]

How are we progressing with the updates? I'm not rushing anything as I've been horrendously inactive recently, so that wouldn't be fair, but I'd like to wrap this up quickly if we can. Sarastro (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yo. Thanks for giving a damn.
I've yet to address all of the suggestions about sources and copyright stuff, but that shouldn't take too long. I've incorporated the new information and rewritten the article, dramatically in some places, but that's what gives me pause - to be fair about it the article would probably need to be reviewed again from scratch. Which feels like a big ask, and to be honest the FA review has dragged on long enough already, so it might be saner to just kill the nomination? Popcornduff (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the best way is to restart the whole thing. The simplest way to do it, as the bot doesn't like anything else, is for you to withdraw it. I can then close it with a note, and you could open a fresh nomination immediately without having to wait for 2 weeks. I think that's totally acceptable as it would have passed by now if you yourself hadn't found more information! Let me know here or on the FAC page and we can do that immediately. Sarastro (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Can I just check what you would like doing with the FAC? I think we need to make some sort of decision, either restarting the review or pinging all prior reviewers if you have finished your work. I think the first option would be neater, and you can still ping your prior reviewers (as long as this includes everyone who commented and is phrased neutrally). Sarastro (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Apologies. I've been dragging my feet on this. Truth told, I've become a bit disillusioned about the entire FAC process, mainly due to my experiences as a reviewer, and kind of lost my appetite for getting things to FA status. But I'll press on and get this article to the finish line. I'll restart the review as you suggest, but I need to finish tweaking a few sources first - I'll do that sometime this week for sure. Popcornduff (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Sarastro OK, ready to do this now. Apologies for the dumb question, but is there a proper way to withdraw a nomination? Popcornduff (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
You've pretty much done that here. I'll close it shortly and leave a note. Sarastro (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Done now. This can be renominated whenever you feel ready. (Although maybe let the bot run so that it doesn't get too complicated. It should run in around 6 hours.) Sarastro (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sasuke Uchiha[edit]

Thanks for providing so many comments in the FAC nomination of Sasuke Uchiha. The nominator fixed all of them while there was a further revision by the guild of copyeditors. Could you give it another look to see if the article is better? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Just wanted to tell you how much good work you do here. Your writing skills are excellent (even if it takes me a minute to see how much of an improvement it is!). JOEBRO64 12:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Once in a Lifetime (Talking Heads song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uncut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for rewriting Once in a Lifetime (Talking Heads song) and turning it into something special. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Olive Branch[edit]

Assuming I do not @%#$ up the formatting:

TheDoctorX (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious three years![edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Akai MPC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sampler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Loveless[edit]

I dont like being blind reverted (can be deduced from the timeline) on an article I essentially wrote. wtf Ceoil (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Your edit looked like a test edit or vandalism, as:
  • it removed a word seemingly at random, creating bad English ("Loveless widely regarded rather than Loveless was widely regarded)
  • it added a mid-sentence paragraph break
  • the edit summary appeared to be gibberish (perhaps "clf" means something I don't know?)
So I rolled it back. Sorry. And while we're at it, maybe take a look at WP:OWN. Popcornduff (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
There are better ways of conduct rather than being an officious prick. Ceoil (talk)
There are better ways of conduct than going around calling people pricks on the internet. Was your edit a mistake or have I missed something? Popcornduff (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
You missed something, but not what you think. Unwatching the page. Ceoil (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to be corrected - I mean that. I gave my rationale for reverting you, and if I misunderstood, by all means set the record straight. Popcornduff (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your service[edit]

Would you consider using your copy editing skills on the third paragraph of the Plot section in Detroit: Become Human, like you did with Heavy Rain? It should have a more general approach and comparable length with the other two paragraphs. I would do it myself, but have tunnel vision. Cognissonance (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Angels (Robbie Williams song)[edit]

Hi! So regarding the edit on which I've been reverted ([[1]]), I can understand your point of view on the matter, and why you think it isn't necessary to specify that Heffernan states Robbie and him should write a charity single together specifically. From my perspective, I find it important to represent Heffernan's motivation - as he states in the interview - to not be financial, but rather philanthropic. I feel that the current revision of the page does not make this clear. Would you be willing to accept something along the lines of 'In April 2018, Heffernan responded in his own podcast, saying he no longer had any interest in the dispute, and suggesting he and Williams write a new song together for the benefit of children's charities.'? --Jonie148 (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you make a good point - that his motivation is worth mentioning - so I've put it back. Popcornduff (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, I went and listened to the actual podcasts in question, and based on that I've removed the entire quote. In context, he sounds quite aggrieved - is he seriously suggesting recording a new song or is it just him being angry and throwing down a "challenge"? I think whatever attempt we make to summarise his suggestions or statements, it involves some kind of interpretation on our part.
I would prefer to minimise the use of the podcasts as sources in general, as it's essentially raw audio of two men telling their sides of the story and using it to air their personal grievances. Reliable secondary sources (such as newspaper articles covering the dispute) are preferable. Popcornduff (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, and thanks for taking the time to look into it further. I generally tend to agree with you on the count of not going into the arguments between the two any further than is necessary, but I would like to rescue the Heffernan podcast source, as I feel it offers a degree of closure to the dispute. I'm going to add a brief sentence at the end of the section accordingly. --Jonie148 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. I get the appeal of having some closure, but it's not the role of an encyclopaedia to create satisfying endings. I don't recall the man specifically saying he had no more interest in the dispute in that podcast (but if you want to point out a timestamp to correct me, please go ahead). Moreover, it seems strange to say he has no interest when he dedicated an entire podcast episode to the subject - and frankly sounds rather miffed to my ears - and ends it more or less by calling Williams out to write a new song together. I'm not convinced it's a fair representation of the source, and as I said before, I think we're better off minimising the use of the source where we can anyway. Popcornduff (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I am certainly aware that his claim seems rather hypocritical. Also, after listening to sections of the podcast episode again, I have been reminded that Heffernan also states that the issue is still unresolved from his perspective (40:23 & 42:44). I couldn't find his claim that he was over it now (I'm fairly sure its near the start of the interview, but quite frankly I don't wish to listen through the whole podcast again), but as we both seem to agree, referencing that claim isn't the best way to represent the podcast's content anyhow. As I stated in my last reply, I really do think it is important to keep some form of reference to this source, even if it only ends up being a sentence stating that Heffernan responded to Williams' interview on True Geordie. Perhaps - to keep use of the source minimal - 'In 2018 Heffernan responded to Williams' interview in an episode of his podcast'? Additionally, I've moved the independent.ie source earlier in the paragraph, as that dates from 2011 rather than 2017. --Jonie148 (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)--Jonie148 (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Phantom Thread[edit]

Phantom Thread has 85 nominations, 24 which are wins. May I move the accolades information from the film's main Wiki page to List of accolades received by Phantom Thread? Daerl (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't need my permission to do that! But it sounds like a good idea, so it has my support. Popcornduff (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Twin Peaks[edit]

Can you please note your edits on the talk page, since your edits are removals, not additions. Thanks, -Inowen (nlfte) 20:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yo. I explained why I removed the text in my edit summary. If you're still not sure why I made the change, it's because your edit violates two Wikipedia policies:
  • as per WP:LEAD, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". You added information to the lead that isn't in the body of the article.
  • as per WP:OR, Wikipedia cannot contain original research. You added information to the lead without a reliable source.
Hope that helps. Popcornduff (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Inowen: Also, please note that there is not (as you appear to think) a policy that removal of content must be treated differently from addition of content in terms of explanation via edit summary versus article talk page. General Ization Talk 21:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
This conversation belongs at Talk:Twin Peaks. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Summary of episode 18 is shorter than eps 7, 16, 14 and another couple in word count. My summary is concise compared to those other entries and it's more accurate. 47.40.52.156 (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Junun (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hi Popcornduff, could you please contact me privately if you are not too busy. many thanks Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Contact you privately? Are talk pages not OK? Popcornduff (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

not really, thanks Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how to contact you privately, and as far as I know, we've never corresponded before. I think we should start here. What's the problem? Popcornduff (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Popcornduff. Thank you for your help, i have posted the problem on the admin page Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

TB-303 replacement PCB[edit]

I urge you to reconsider re-adding the RE-303 section. The sources I cited are all valid.

The fact that there are replacement PCBs and CPUs for the TB-303 available should be part of this article. There is a similar section in the Wiki article about the new replacement Juno 106 VCA chips (although yet uncited it is the roland ba662 clone by openmusic labs).

The part about the TB-303 clones is also informative and should also be re-added. I don't think the article is complete without mentioning the clones and software emulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc wik m001 (talkcontribs) 02:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree. The majority of the section consists of original research and editorialising with dubious sourcing. I agree that the information is worth including, but as per Wikipedia policy it has to be attributed to a reliable source. Why don't you try rewriting the section using only reliable sources?
See WP:ALBUM/SOURCE for a list of reliable sources for music articles. For example, Sound on Sound is reliable, so if you can find the information you need there, we can add it.
See WP:RS for information about how to identify reliable sources.
I might rewrite this section myself sometime, but until I (or someone else) does that, I think it's better to remove it. Popcornduff (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Did I ever give you one of these? no? Well it's well deserved. Your CE always does wonders. TarkusABtalk 13:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018[edit]

This quote has been present for many years. No one has ever messed with or changed it, apart you last month[2]. You don't have any wp:consensus for this change. Woovee (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm amazed at some of the stuff people revert. Nonetheless I've responded at Talk:Joy Division. Popcornduff (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm concerned because I've included this quote in the article 5 years ago [3], I wouldn't have reverted it otherwise. As a reader, the first version doesn't annoy me but as your view is different, we're going to wait for a few replies at the talk. Woovee (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


Roland template[edit]

Hi Popcornduff. You have reverted a logo that myself and marchjuly have agreed can be used, (it was the newer orange logo that wasn't to be used). See below. thanks The same license applies to the Korg template which is why it has been left and the Yamaha logo (on the infobox) has been replaced also. This was discussed earlier on EP111s talkpage. CheersIjustwannabeawinner (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Popcornduff. Thank you for your diligence, but the simplified wordmark logo File:Roland logo.svg added by Ijustwannabeawinner is licensed as WP:PD and thus its use is not subject to WP:NFCC#9 or the rest of WP:NFCCP; so, the file shouldn’t have been removed for that reason. Now, if ther’s Some other reason that you feel the file should be removed, then that’s OK. You should probably clarify that on the template’s talk page though, so that others can respond. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
All cool. Thanks for the info. Popcornduff (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly - Thanks
@Popcornduff i will revert the revert.

Thanks guys Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Panzer Dragoon Orta[edit]

As to what I was adding in Panzer Dragoon Orta, why do I need to source it? I believe putting sources should only be for things that are likely to be doubted by some readers. I don't think that's such a case for what I'm trying to add to the page, considering there's enough proof in the articles related to it. 172.250.44.165 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works.
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.
See WP:VERIFY for more information. Popcornduff (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Groundhog Day (film)[edit]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you show me exactly where in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film it explains about (main genre) ? SlightSmile 15:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD: the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. There have been a few MOS discussions about this too. Popcornduff (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Now I know what I'm not liking. I've seen that film many times and the dominant theme is the time loop supported by humourous moments and a love interest. Would you agree that fantasy film should be given as the primary genre in the lede. SlightSmile 20:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
What genre you or I might personally reckon the film best aligns with isn't relevant. We have to go with what the sources say. Going by the critical reception section, it's most often described as a comedy, not a fantasy: eg "a particularly witty and resonant comedy", "the best American comedy since 'Tootsie", "Total Film voted it the seventh greatest comedy film", "Time Out London named it the 5th-greatest comedy", etc. Popcornduff (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for explaining. SlightSmile 13:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Regarding film production companies[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Regarding film production companies. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Fix loops[edit]

Your last edit summary made me grin, but I think you could leave most or all of it there -- examples of bad prose are not at all irrelevant to the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Kudos[edit]

This was a nice incremental tightening of the text. Usually my heart sinks when I see an edit summary of "copyedit," so it's great to find there are people who know what they're doing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Cheers, and down with the Nazis. Popcornduff (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC request regarding Here (Alicia Keys album)[edit]

Can you comment on this RfC? It concerns whether a rather lengthy, quote-filled section should be trimmed or not? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For your incredible work on my featured article nomination and defense against the opposition. Your ce was amazing. Any chance you can give a vote of "Support or Oppose" to the FAN, this FAN is dragging and could need more votes. Thanks again. AmericanAir88(talk) 01:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)