The following page is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The source is stated in refeence 55: Ziemke, 1986 pg.327. That Model retreated from Baranovichi (Belarus) and Vilnius (Lithuania). Therefore the edit is already sourced.
Gunkot (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you just left a link to my other non-used account which I forgot the password to on my extended confirmed user request. Just for you to know I am not asking for that account to receive extended confirmed abilities, I'm asking you to do it for this one. Maybe that page was not the right place to ask the request but this case is a tricky one because this account is older than 30 days and has made more than 500 yet still doesn't appear under extended confirmed status. If you read my request it will make more sense.Prana1111 (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is EchoFive. In response to your message regarding the changes I made regarding the Three Musketeers in popular culture, I would like to give a rebuttal. You had my addition removed based on not providing a "reliable source". The information I added to the article is, in fact, stated in the source already linked to in the article. The changes I made were to add d'Artagnan and Keldeo to the list of Pokemon inspired by the Three Musketeers, which is even in the same paragraph as information previously cited for Aramis, Porthos, and Athos.
The cited material reads "The Three Musketeers, in case you didn’t know, are the 17th century team of fictional French adventurers who are best known for their motto, “All for one and one for all.” Athos is the trio’s well-rounded leader, Porthos is the largest and strongest of the group, and Aramis is the romantic pretty-boy. The Three Musketeers are often accompanied by D’Artagnan, the group’s newest and youngest member, who’s likely meant to be represented by Keldeo."
Please replace my addition, as your claim of not having a reliable source is, in fact, incorrect. I was merely adding more information from a previously provided source.
EchoFive (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime:
I'm here to contest your undos on Roald Dahl page.
Can you make me one example of useless link that I've added to that page? I honestly do not think that I've exaggerated with the links.
And I don't understand why the phrase "at Villa Marie, Fairwater Road, in Llandaff (a district of Wales' capital city Cardiff) to Norwegians..." could not be better than the previous form.
It isn't difficult to understand and it doesn't have any less information than the other.
Illuminate me.
Good night.
@FlightTime: What the f*** have I read? What is supposed to mean "A few reasons as a matter of fact"? I seriously can't understand.
Please respond me with an example of an incorrect thing that I've added to the page or let me change the page again because I don't want to talk with someone whom don't even had a good reason for his revertings.
Marty5550 (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with this user, they only see what they want to see. This discussion/section is closed
The following discussion/section is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion/section.
Please see what the reference I used is. It is not a self-published source type blog but is made up of writers mostly from Wall Street Journal and some vetted but not employed by WSJ (freelancers). https://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/ So the Self-published sources is not germane to this reference. ContentEditman (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: What rule at Wikipedia says a reference can't say Blog? As I said before WSJ calls it a blog but its still a WSJ Article by WSJ writers. Its not a self-published source per your Wikipedia rule you linked to. So that does not pertain to this reference. ContentEditman (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
ContentEditman
Could you help me with ContentEditman? I have submitted an edit Warring notice but I'm not sure if it was done correctly. He is edit Warring on multiple pages (as evidenced by his edit history) and is also sock puppeting on the Mike Gabbard page (using IP to mask his edit Warring) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:DC00:14D0:19B1:D5BB:25A4:6AA3 (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2A01:CB00:3FC:8E00:90C8:6295:DB3E:C8B3 (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello FlightTime (love the nickname btw) you considered my info on Daltrey's page as "bad faith"? sorry but this isnt weird or funny it is simply a small fact and It's interesting for the viewer. I discovered it lately and was so amazed about this interpretation. Why not to mention it? The original song was a very big hit it is interesting. If you have a suggestion about the way it should look like, just tell me, I dont want to act stubborn, I just want this to be known in an informative way.[reply]
Hi. I’m baffled by you reverting my edit on the Alice Cooper article. There is an image of him performing in a 2019 concert, and instead of it appearing in the 2010s section where it belongs – hence I moved it up there – it’s in the style and influences section. Preya Knight (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some other editor (which will come by if this editor keeps up with this attitude) with more patients than me can deal further. This discussion/section is closed
The following discussion/section is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion/section.
I don’t understand your need to be following around and reverting my edits just for the sake of it. Why? I did constructively edit Mia May article and my recent revert on the Elvis Presley article was a revert in good faith because the text had been included for months upon months and the user even admitted that the text was true.--Doctor987654 (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The text had been included in the article for months upon months and the user admitted that the text was true, a user doesn’t get to remove text from an article because he or she considers it to be “pointless” (the user’s word). If anything, that is more disruptive. There is nothing wrong with using someone’s name more than once in an article.
Please don't assume you know more about what we do here than someone whos been around over ten years. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel)
That’s a straw man argument. Can you please explain how I have made any disruptive edits? With regards to the Elvis Presley article reverts, I would appreciate it if you could give your reason to revert my edits and then threaten me with being blocked from edits when all you have done is give the reason as “Nope”. I have a reasonable explanation why I reverted the user’s edit. Firstly, the text had been included in the article for months upon months which suggested that there was a general consensus for it to be included in the article. Secondly, the user who removed the text admitted that it was true. Thus, why did you revert my edit with the reason as “Nope”? So far, you haven’t told me why I am making disruptive edits. I am trying my best to improve articles and recently you have been essentially stalking my edits and reverting my edits for no reason. Why? I have created a section on the Elvis Presley article and mentioned your rather vindictive personal attack against me. I don’t want to argue with you, but I can’t understand why you’re being so harsh to me when I haven’t vandalised any article and I am trying my best to improve articles.--Doctor987654 (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I think that you have made a genuine mistake about me. Please check the Elvis Presley article edit history and you will see that no one had reverted me. Basically, someone made an edit which removed text which had been included in the article for months for no other reason than he or she thought it was “pointless” so I reverted his or her edit in good faith. I really didn’t like seeing you accuse me of being disruptive because I want to improve Wikipedia (check my edit contributions, I have not had any disputes with anyone about my edits because I try my best to improve articles) and I understand that you, like anyone else, including myself, can make a mistake. I don’t want there to be any hard feelings between us, so I do hope that you can see your mistake and rectify it.--Doctor987654 (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: Have you mistaken me for someone else? I can only assume that your multiple reverts of my edits are down to a mistaken identity. Two examples are that I added someone’s birth and death dates in an article and Mia May was born Hermine Pfleger and previously it was “a.k.a”, but that is not the case since it was his birth name not what she was known as and I changed that to “born” and you reverted it. I have neither disrupted nor vandalised an article. I’m sorry if you have confused me with someone else, but I can assure you that I am not interested in vandalising an article, arguing with a user, etc. On the contrary, I want to be able to edit articles to improve them. I’m not going to revert all of your reverts to my edits, but the recent one about my revert in good faith on the Elvis article, I hope you will take your time to look at the edit history of the article and see that no one reverted my edit and a few minutes later (three minutes to be precise) you reverted my edit with the explanation as “Nope”. I would appreciate it if you could then revert your own edit so the text will be included back in the article and I can then freely edit articles and you will see that I am trying my best to improve the articles on Wikipedia. Thank you.--Doctor987654 (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have added “also known mononymously as Elvis” back to the article because 1) the text had been included in the article for a very long time which shows that there was consensus for it to be included in the article 2) the person who removed the text admitted that the text was true, but was simply claiming that it was repetitive to have “Elvis” mentioned more than once in the leading sentence. But, that doesn’t warrant the removal of the text and many articles use the same word more than once in the leading sentence e.g. Las Vegas. You can check that my initial revert of the edit as good faith was not reverted by an experienced user and no one has objected to anything on the talk page. I hope this is the end of a simple mistake which has led to some confusion and that if we cross each other’s paths in the future there are no hard feelings between us. I want to emphasise that I don’t wish to claim to know better than people who have been editing for years (congratulations on editing for over ten years!) and I do not want to disrupt any articles. Take care.--Doctor987654 (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
@FlightTime: Hello, i received your warning about "over-linking" on the Gene Simmons page. I do not think you were correct in reverting. I changed the link to a first usage link and deleted the link on second usage, e.g. on the word "Jewish." This is normal Wikipedia style. Please let us discuss this on the Gene Simmons page, not my personal page or your personal page. Thanks. catherine yronwode 75.101.104.17 (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
75.101.104.17 (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too busy for this, continued addition of unsourced content by this user will eventually be handled. This discussion/section is closed
The following discussion/section is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion/section.
Hello FlightTime, I'm afraid you got the wrong end of the stick- the edit summary I included with my edit clearly explained that the quotes listed in the article do not match the source from which they were allegedly taken, and indeed seem geared towards putting Cox- whatever his faults may be- in a bad light. Like my edits reflected, the first quote (which I removed) was not a reflection of his own opinion, but a comment on a tape sent to him by two musicians; the second quote does not include the 'like I am'. I don't see that there can be any justification for the retention of these erroneous quotations, and if I don't receive a response will have to conclude you reverted my edit in error (with, no doubt, the best of intentions) and will make the changes again. Thanks 78.144.71.58 (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also I note you have reverted my edit to Peter Gabriel's article; I would venture to state that mention of the Gabriel family's wealth originating in the timber trade- viz. the source of whatever prominence, prior to Peter Gabriel's own fame, they can claim- and from the existing source no less, is not irrelevant... I fear perhaps you are a little overzealous with your desire to maintain what you consider to be "order"?
The reliable source is the existing book cited, 'Cox, Alex (2008). X Films: True Confessions of a Radical Filmmaker. Soft Skull Press. ISBN 1-59376-193-7.' What do you suggest one do in such a case? Cite it again? I suggest you take a look at the book for yourself. I'm sorry that you feel I'm attempting to perform some obscure sabotage, or whatever, but I can't really make this any clearer.
The first quotation, which I removed because it attributed to Cox an opinion on Vicious which was in fact his opinion on a song sent to him, from page 104 of the aforementioned book: 'Two guys had sent me a tape of their song about Sid. They were quite young and the song was very critical- about how Sid had sold out, done nothing of value, died an idiot.' With context it can clearly be discerned that to attribute the previous form of the quote to Cox himself as a comment on Vicious is extremely disingenuous at the very least.
The second quotation, which was in the article as part of the statement: 'one of the reasons he was attracted to the project was that he was afraid that if someone else made it, it would portray its subjects as "real exemplars of Punk like I am; rather than sold-out traitors to it."' is in fact given, on page 78, as 'The danger was two-fold[...] the film would present Vicious and Spungen as exemplars of Punk, rather than sold-out traitors to it.'
So as you can see, the book does not reflect the previous form of the quotes included in the article. I'm sorry that we have butted heads over such a trivial matter, but I don't see why I'm having the finger wagged at me for making a constructive change reflecting the facts. 78.144.71.58 (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Whitespace
Do what toy want, not worth the trouble. This discussion/section is closed
The following discussion/section is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion/section.
You may not be aware of this, but Wikimedia's software places a blank line before and after a heading, and a space before and after the words in the heading. That is the default at Wikipedia. When you push that "new section" tab and create a section, a blank line is automatically placed before and after the heading.
The blank lines are a help to editors whose eyesight isn't so good anymore. I really appreciate it when I am in the editing window and scanning down a long article. The headings jump out at me, but if there is only one space (usually above a heading), I can easily miss the heading. When there is a blank space above and below, I never miss it.
The actual appearance of the article is unaffected by the presence or absence of a single blank line above or below, so I hope you will start thinking about making it easier for your fellow editors by at least allowing others to keep the original, default, blank lines and not removing them, which serves no legitimate purpose. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "remove them"? I was just providing some information about the default spacings at Wikipedia and asking that you not change them. That's all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Stone Sour Timeline
I don't understand why it got reverted. All releases are mentioned, clearly established in band's History page. All releases are also on their discography page. Slipknot, vocalist's other band has same structure. If this doesn't fit, why that timeline doesn't have Other Releases removed?
Gnaxywa (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: Ok then, I'll make a post. How many people does it take to establish a consensus? Judging by it's Talk page, posts rarely gets any replies. In this case, the edit is factual and informative, not controversial at all Gnaxywa (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sitting Bull talk page
@FlightTime: Hey, I just added an entry on the talk page of the Sitting Bull article. Shortly after, you moved all other entries (except mine) into the archive even though there were a couple recent ones among them. Was that a mistake or is there a reason for that? Just asking because I was just about to reply to one of those other entries, but when I tried to save, that entry was already archived. Billy7 (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: I was going to reply to L293D (entry: "Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2018"). For what reason did you archive all of these posts? I think a lot of those entries weren't really old enough to be archived, especially considering that the talk page wasn't really full or anything. A few of those could have potentially still been answered at some point. Billy7 (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: Nevermind then, it's not that important anyway. I was mainly just surprised to see the entire talk page vanish all of the sudden, without any apparent reason. Billy7 (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being here for x amount of time doesn't mean I study all the fine details, I mostly use Wikipedia just to read articles. My contributions mainly just consist of correcting spelling/grammar/punctuation errors and asking questions or discussing stuff. Billy7 (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok then. I think I misunderstood the message you posted on your talk page, the ping thing apparently is only for your alternate talk page. Thanks for the explanation. Billy7 (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[1] That editor has a political essay in his userspace and you're saying he/she doesn't want to discuss politics on their talk page? By the way, why are you policing someone's talk page? That's creepy, but I get the impression creepiness is a common trait with heavy Wikipedia editors/admins. 155.19.91.37 (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well FT. MarnetteD|Talk20:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello FlightTime, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of new to editing Wikipedia so can you tell me why you removed correct information from, as far as I can see from other wiki pages, the right spot. Texas35078 (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime it says that information in his personal life section how is that incorrect. It even says on Carrie Fisher's page that she was married to Paul Simon. Everything I added was accurate Texas35078 (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stone Sour Timeline
So, as expected, some time has passed and my talk page got no replies. Does that mean that consensus is reached? There is no opposition and, I mean, the majority of bands has that type of timeline.
Gnaxywa (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: I'll say it again. I opened up a discussion. No one has participated in it yet. It has been open for quite some time, no one is against the idea. Does that mean that I can go ahead and make the change? That is all I want to know. If not, then I have some more questions for you... For example, consensus. Quote:
"When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus"
"A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised"
"If the edit is reverted, try making a compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns"
I don't know why it's even needed because so for not you, not anyone has had any CONCERN about the CONTENT of edit. So if you do have any concerns, please feel free to address it on the talk page. Otherwise, if no one participates in discussion raising concerns that means that consensus is there.
I'm not sure what the issue is with the edits I've been making but you seem to have one. This is my first time editing wikipedia articles, so perhaps I am doing it wrong, but I tried to base my edits off of other, similar information. First you said that it was useless trivia, which I don't understand? I mean, Ninja Sex Party has released 7 albums, and when I noticed that they were not credited with having covered any of the songs on their Under The Covers Vol III album, I thought that they should be so I started editing the pages with the songs on their cover album. Then you said that I posed something without a reference, but I've been using the ref tag and using the same music website as other credited albums in the (Don't Fear) the Reaper article. Can you please try to explain what it is that I am doing wrong?
Dominakiara (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam9007: LOL, you're correct, I did read it wrong (actually, I didn't read your {{tq}} line) I feel stupid, thanks for the clarification. (you might want to move your comment just under the one you're replying to) Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel)02:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I manage Ilan Rubin. How can I edit this so that there is current and real information? I just want the correct information as google aggregates from wikipedia.
Ministerofinfo (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know why you reverted my edit on the SR-71 page. The information that I edited was flat out wrong and didn't even make sense on the disposition of that aircraft. I also supplied a link to where the proper information on the aircraft in question is at present. This particular aircraft was also loaned to NASA the time frame I had annotated and the article even had the wrong aircraft number assigned to it. You can read the history of this particular aircraft at the habu.org website, which is a very authoritative source on history pertaining to the whole Blackbird program, including A12, M/D12, YF12 and SR71 lines of aircraft.[1]Muddocktor (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Muddocktor
Muddocktor (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FlightTime, the editor is adding the content to a few articles. It started with Chelsea Handler and I posted a note on their talk page stating they needed to start a discussion on the talk page. I honestly think it is undue. They then continued to add the content to other articles. I have posted another note on their talk page but additional eyes is appreciated. S0091 (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I completely understand. I can do fine on my personal laptop but not my work one. A mouse is required for that one. I know folks edit using their phone or tablets but I do no think I will ever gain that skill. Thanks for the reply. S0091 (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, hi, & hello. =)
I saw that you had reviewed my new page; and so out of curiosity, I decided to take a look at your. On your page, you mention your project found at:
http://www.everythingfoodanddrink.org/
Unfortunately, I could not actually see it. Perhaps, is it down at the moment? I could view a google cache of a page; but of course, that does not allow actual browsing of the site but only a snapshot of a page (and usually without proper formatting). Anyways, are you aware that it is down?
Also of note since we're here, it seems that we share a fair amount of interests, and I noticed that you used BBSs before the internet was a thing. I did too; and way back then, I created the same username which I most commonly use today (BoyBlueSky) in part because I liked having the acronym BBS. ^_^
@FlightTime:BoyBlueSky (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
BoyBlueSky (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Names
There are many alternate names bands went by that are not sourced. You should address those as well. Dream Theater was previously Mystic, but it's not sourced. So... Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!03:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you bothered to look at the article first, you will see I did what you requested. You can also clearly see that when you look at the differences between articles. But you ignored that by your revert. I am suggesting you revert that. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!04:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and you reverted twice as well. Take your own advice and grow up. Plus you have ignored where I clearly did what you requested. But it's okay for you to revert twice, but if someone else does, you lose your mind. Not good. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!04:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you gone through on my contributions and reverted all my changes? Seems almost spiteful. If you have a particular issue please reach out.
108.4.68.21 (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is you're making major changes and removing content without discussing your issues with the articles you're changing, you're here to change things to the way you want them, that's not how it works around here. Changes like you're doing should be discussed first. - FlightTime (open channel)22:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flight Time, first thank you for directing me where to go to do a reference. it was a big help. I see it is posted but there's a note that Instagram is not a good source? This comes from Miles and Trace's own personal instagram accounts. Plus I see it used on numerous other wiki entries on other famous people. I copied how the other entries listed info and used titles like those entries did. Thanks for your help.2604:2000:26C6:B500:F453:ABCE:9AB5:D66E (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FlightTime! You reverted a change and left me a warning, but I am confused--I cited the edit. I had mistakenly made two edits; I had saved the first edit to the line and then completed the edit with the citation within a few minutes. Did you perhaps miss the second edit in which I added a quote and source citation? Have a good day!
Marianneliberte (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can not help you at this time. You need to talk to an Admin, I'll see if I can ping one for you. This discussion/section is closed
The following discussion/section is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion/section.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Importance of my page
Please make any further comment here: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and not on my talk page. This discussion/section is closed
The following discussion/section is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion/section.
Hi FlightTime,
This is Elliot Fletcher. I’m wondering what your stake is in my wikipedia page. If you had a page where you were being misrepresented, I think you’d also feel you have the right to correct it with the factual information. Are you being paid to change it? Have you educated yourself about the transgender community? Do you work for me? Do you work for wikipedia? I’m just very confused about your seeming assurance that you know more about my life than I do. Thanks. Elliot.fletch (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The page above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
