Archives

2011 - Q3–Q4  2012 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4   2013 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4   2014 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4   2015 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4   2016 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4   2017 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4   2018 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4   2019 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4   2020 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4   2021 - Q1 · Q2 · Q3–Q4  2022 - Q1–Q4  2023 - Q1–Q4  2024 - Q1–Q4

The GamerGate arbitration clarification request of June 2017, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm trying to find the result somewhere but I don't see anything. L235 can you point me in the right direction? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Salv! The Committee directed me to archive the request without a formal motion tallying their views. I would personally read the arbitrator remarks as: (a) finding that the article philoSOPHIA falls within the scope of DS authorized in the area; and (b) confirming that talk page notices and alerts are not administrative actions. In the end, of course, AE (and ultimately the Committee) decides if a particular article or edit falls within the scope of authorized DS, either when requesting an initial sanction or on appeal of that sanction. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.... it's kind of a shame that no real answer was confirmed by the commitee; the views expressed by Arbitrators in response to the ARCA were divided by a schism of opinion on a few levels and I feel that these conflicting views deserved resolution instead of being left up in the air for people to take away what suits their position best. :( ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

There were also a few specific improvements to WP:AC/DS that were proposed but will likely never be implemented unless ArbCom agrees on them. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

Hi. I am now unblocked. In fact it was 48-hour block and was not about the request I did. In my opinion the block did not affect the discussion for the permission. In case you don't know, I was told to seek consensus before doing CHECKWIKI related tasks. The p tag cconversion is one of them.

I would like your help here: Should I re-request Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_to_replace_p_tags to do via my bot account? In the discussion many people opposed only the main account part. What is your advice? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

My personal advice: forget about CHECKWIKI/COSMETIC/bots altogether for some time. Let people forget about you a bit. The more you keep talking about bots and semi-automated editing and CHECKWIKI and stuff, the stronger the community will brace against you, as evidenced by the recent discussions. It's a shame because I know how much you can bring to the table, but it's not something that can be changed through "more talking about it". Go edit other projects, or edit article content for a while, something to prove you can be constructive and aren't single-minded towards bots/checkwiki/cosmetic/etc. and I'm sure in a few months the community will be more than happy to see you return to your area of expertise. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

For me, if any bot was running the tasks, and I had to kust sit and watch it would be fine. I understand that the situation that is created is a toxic enviroment at the moment. Today, I tried doing other stuff. Let's see how it goes. Thanks again for your time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Salvidrim! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't suppose you could persuade MusikAnimal to throw his hat in the ring while you're at it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You know what they say... pick your battles :p MusikAnimal is already the most active EFM maintainer! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hehe! If you want my support for Salvidrim!, that goes without saying :) If you want me to open a RfB too, well, I've heard that one too many times so don't push me because I might do it! I don't really want to get involved with closing RfAs, though. For me it would be more bot-related matters — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Then you should consider BRFA and not 'cratship! Although if I manage to get the first failed RfB in half a decade I don't envy the next candidate, who won't have the benefit of a success streak. :p  Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• If anyone cares, going to sleep. See you when the sun rises  Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  For the record, I still think you'd make a fine 'crat. I don't like pulling in off-wiki behaviour, and this is why. It is very true that Wikipedia can in effect be seen as a workplace, where we may portray a different character than we do in the real world. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. We all are a bit different off-wiki. However, unfortunately the internet isn't Vegas :( Just want you to know I've never really seen you fall short here in the wikiworld, and I still stand by you as a valued and respected colleague :) I'm sorry 'cratship didn't work out, but honestly (all due respect to them) I don't think you're missing out on much. All the more reason not to throw my hat in the ring =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  *shrugs* I've (finally?) concluded that the community will never trust me with a functionary role. Perhaps it's perhaps I'm not a quiet conformist, or perhaps it's because I'm a raving psycopath (depends who you ask!), but it's just how it is. It's fine. I don't think changing myself for this reason would be honest anyways. :)  Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. Ultimately we're all here to write an enyclopedia, not see how many advanced user rights we can brag about on our user pages - and people would do well to remember that. I had discussions about 'cratship myself not too long ago and what I discovered is you have to be pretty dull, uncontroversial and stay away from holding strong opinions. I think it's fairly obvious that that's not me. Stick to what you've got, and beware of the Peter Principle. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

RfB

Salvidrim, I think you've done some good work and you're not a bad person. I don't much care about the non-wiki-related things; as far as I'm concerned that doesn't affect your abilities as an encyclopedia editor. But I can't overlook the fact that you apparently willingly and gleefully participate in a subreddit which has been responsible for the vicious harassment and outing of myself and many other editors. You don't appear to care, and that's fine, but the bottom line is that a large share of Wikipedians will never trust you as long as that is the case. I'm regretful at having to cast an oppose, but your choice to be part of the problem is solely responsible. You can choose to not be part of the problem if you want, but that's up to you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you should probably pull out of the RfB. Not only is it not going to happen, but the discussion is getting ugly - in particular the barbed comments flying back between you and GorillaWarfare, with reference to Twitter and off-wiki stuff, just makes me wince. I can't see it getting any better the longer it stays open, as I think more users will pile-on as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it went the way that it did. I've been very impressed with your work at SPI, and I think that you've been getting better and better as an administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi Salvidrim! I noticed that your username is listed in the big leagues. Good luck! I have pretty much never seen an RFB up to this point, so this is new for me, but I figured it has to be harder than an RFA, right? Well, here's a kitten to cheer you up during that time. Isn't she cute, reclining happily in the sun? Aww...

—k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @K6ka: Well; it would appear to be slightly harder, yes  ;) — fortunavelut luna 11:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

The kitten says "Aw damn, I know it sucks, but I will learn from this." ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 8:49 am, Today (UTC−4)

Post mortem

That was fun, no? Look at all this fun we're having. What am I gonna do with this literal mountain of fun I've been delivered? This is way too much fun for a single person to handle. Most fun I've ever had. Amazing. Great fun. 10/10. Perfect. Went exactly as planned. No issues there. Resounding success.

(Okay, back to business folks, shitshow's over)  Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that request. You do a lot of good work here, Salvidrim. Please don't be downhearted. If I had got to that in time I would have voted Support for your honesty (not that you need support from an editor like me, of course). I really don't see how any of that would have affected your efforts on this project. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC) p.s. if I missed anything you may have said on Reddit, only nine months ago, perhaps you could remind me.

A small present for you

Because, well, you know. Not everyone can do ... the boring work, let's be honest! ... but we are all here to edit. And we, the community, do all appreciate your edits, even those who don't support you for other things. And this article is listed on your user page in the list of those you're working on. So, hope this helps even more than a kitten pic.

I can actually make one of her slightly less grim, grinning even, but then she looks sort of silly. Because, I'm guessing, she was not quite trained in holding a perfectly photogenic smile at all times yet. Which would be better, you think? --GRuban (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Oooooh jeeez yes, I regularly scoured Flickr and Google Images but found nothing that was appropriately licensed. The whole RfB thing may have been worth it just for that. Thanks a million times. This picture is just fine :D  Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

So here's the trick to that. There is a Google Images "Usage rights" filter pulldown, that shows up when you click "Tools" on the images results page (after your first search from http://images.google.com. Select "Labeled for reuse with modification". (I, um, kind of, partly, did it. Cough.) The tool just goes by what the page says, of course, and, shockingly, not everything said on the Internet is actually true, so you, the editor, are still responsible for checking that the site does likely own the license to release. By the way, some of sites (like Vimeo, the one where this one came from), hide the image release license in weird places, so I wrote (most of) this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Where_is_the_license_on_various_sites%3F --GRuban (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yea, I know how to search on Google filtered by usage rights. Thanks for the Vimeo tip!  Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry...

...that you had to withdraw your RfB, I thought you would have been a good 'crat. Best Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing against you, I just find it funny how many opposers come out after the closure to say "I'll support next time" or "you would have made a fine 'crat". Is this an attempt at retention or cheering me up? 'Cause this fella ain't going nowhere :p  Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Side question

I'm not following how your posts at Reddit (about doing mean stuff as a child and your joking self-assessment of workplace behavior) ended up being a topic at the ArbCom elections late last year, without triggering WP:OUTING. The whole thing seems weird, invasive, distasteful, and petty to me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can't really be "outing" if I'm just displaying everything publicly, can it. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  Well that was the question; I wasn't sure if you'd displayed it here on WP or what. The whole thing seemed kind of out-of-place.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  Sure, everything is linked to from my user page infobox, and even more info is on http://salvidrim.net Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

[1] did you mean to mention me in that way? I didn't initiate the RM. that was Ham Pastrami. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yea, sorry,  fixed, I noticed that you had opened a new RM halfway into writing the first closure but saved it because I was already looking at another one and intended to come back to note the new RM and must've swapped your names. :p (Although, I would probably be negligent not to trout you a bit for opening a new RM while an MRV is open, eh)  Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Following up here the fix has me as the one arguing, and I only made a closer statement. :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Goddamn charcuterie, I thought you and Ham Pastrami were alts for some reason! XD  Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. I almost made a joke about my not being able to spell the name of lunch meat 10 years ago :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

hello dear, why you deleted this page. You have any problem regarding this page then first let me know... i will try to give best of me .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsgondaliya87 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. Read WP:NOTADVERTISING. First you will need reliable sources covering Kgbazar.com (such as articles about it in reliable journals or news sites).  Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey. You recently blocked an account that falsely accused me of sockpuppetry with Sro23 and Amaury (maybe as well as IJBall). However, you made a mistake with your blocking. You wrote it was abusing multiple accounts linking the SPI page to me. The same goes for the user page. Thank you! Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 11:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the userpage tag was a mistake. Sorry!  Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries. The block log still has my username. There is no way to change it? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(tps) There isn't a way for us to change a log entry, but I reblocked the account with a link to Orchomen. I also deleted (and salted) the page so it's redlinked in the log now, and if anyone clicks on it, they'll see why it was deleted. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, DoRD! Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Billy Christmas.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you meant to say something like "our non-free content policy" instead of "fair use law". Fair use law wouldn't control this. As an educational resource, we have very wide latitude to use copyrighted works. It's the policy here that would play into the consensus/no-consensus element. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way; I also wanted to say thanks for closing this. I think Wikipedia does not have enough administrators willing to tackle difficult issues. I appreciate you wading into this, regardless of whatever decision you made. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point.  clarified :) Ben—Salvidrim! ✉ 21:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Uhg. One more copyedit maybe? "overturned to consensus" should read "overturned to no consensus" (emphasis mine)? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

*sighs* Thanks :p Ben—Salvidrim! ✉ 21:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Too funny! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for closing this. It might not surprise you to read that I am of the view that the discussion should have been closed as "no consensus, default to keep". I don't see any basis in policy for your contention that this "would result in the file not being allowed to remain on Wikipedia under our fair-use policies". While there are obviously strong disagreements about how to apply WP:NFCC#8 to this case, I contend that it is obvious at a glance that there is no consensus for one outcome or the other. I ask you to please amend your closure accordingly.  Sandstein  22:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• "At a glance", as you say, there are twice as many opinions to delete than to keep. And the burden for NFCC (as a "policy with legal ramifications") is that for an image to remain on Wikipedia, it must demonstrably meet our NFCC criteria; this can be accomplished through lack of opposition (most fair-use files) or through consensus that a certain file meets NFCC (such as in an FFD dicussion). Lack of consensus that a file meets NFCC means a lack of justification for it to remain on the project. Fair-use files must have valid rationales or be removed. A rationale for which there is no consensus of justification cannot be considered a valid rationale. Ben—Salvidrim! ✉ 22:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response. I have opened a deletion review discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 July 26#26 July 2017.  Sandstein  07:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

I downloaded a photo of my late uncle Dr. Morris C. Shumiatcher to add to his Wikipedia entry, but it was removed because I did not know how to properly certify that he gave me the photo. Please add the photo back to his entry.--Ronald Kessler KesslerRonald@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) 13:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

That "he gave you the photo" doesn't mean much. Whoever took the photo is normally the copyright holder, unless you have documented proof otherwise. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I read that you weren't planning on attending Wikimania due to the cost. Just wanted to let you know that you could drop in on some of the day 1 preconference activities for free, without registering, at McGill University and BAnQ Vieux-Montreal.

• You may also register for WikiConference North America day 1 for free by applying a special coupon code. Schedule
• Activities at BAnQ (a few events are scheduled for the other days as well)

I'd likely show up for some of these events if I were local, but I don't think this is sufficient to motivate me to plan a last minute trip from Ohio. Sorry. I wish they published the schedule sooner. The schedule was just released on July 29. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Question for you, as apparently you've played Witcher 3 and I haven't. Is the lighting in File:Ciri Cosplay (The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt) • 2.jpg something you'd expect in-game, or would you expect Ciri to be in more light?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Crisco 1492: I've played Witcher 3 and in the game Ciri's skin is lighter. More specifically, the scar under her eye is more apparent, but the lighting in that cosplay is close enough IMO. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Ah. There's an FP discussion for the image in question, and nobody's mentioned the scar yet. There have been concerns that the image is underexposed, however.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, the game has a wide variety of day/night, outside/inside lighting, and even some unique lighting uch as glowing swords, fire cast from your hands, and Ciri herself can turn into some form of tracer lights when dashing. Here's one detailed headshot with interesting lighting in which you can also see clearly that the scar is much more visible. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Interesting. Thanks! (I'd consider playing this, but my computer was overheating playing Fallout 4, and this doesn't look any lighter) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see new article Izack Rodda a recreated page from previous expired WP:BLPPROD, unsourced WP:BLP. -- Ham105 (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw it. It looks fine. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to come to you first since I know you protected this page from creation. As many users including both DannyMusicEditor and I have noticed this user long-term abusing the edit request system, I'd like to see if you'd be able to recreate Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Никита-Родин-2002 as a redirect to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Certification inflator? Mainly because the latter talks about the same user to an extent. Also, I was not asked by Nikita to create this LTA report (see the edit history where I reverted possible evasion.) I am very well aware that the original 3 LTA reports were created by Nikita himself in violation of his global ban from Wikipedia. Thanks. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

Doug Weller talk 15:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm withdrawing this SPI. Would you mind doing whatever needs to be done in your capacity as an SPI clerk? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, sir, much appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)