This is an archive of past discussions with User talk:Jauerback/Archives. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Your recent editing history at Chris Kyle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I know it would be unorthodox, but is it possible to put a protection against IP editing on the Chris Kyle talk page? The same individual is continuing to IP hop and is now removing the RfC. I expect they won't stop. -- WV ● ✉✓18:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that my comment wasn't constructive. I encourage you to patrol the Wikipedia pages claiming his music is "satanic", or calling him "evil" as diligently as you have my note.
I'm a lover of everything Prince ever did. And my observations of his genius, hidden or blatant, coincidence, or not, are constructive, and relevant to others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christeyena (talk • contribs) 19:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
What is the protocol for putting photos onto a bio page/ do they have to be public domain? Also what is the rule on adding external links? thanks,CydorsmCydorsm (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I don't really understand the purpose of this rule, but ok. Not very convenient, with the SUL, to have different rules regarding usernames depending on the language . Have a nice day, Jules78120 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello There, please do not revert the changes, you can remove the links, as they might have accidentally added by me, intent is not promotional, its a genious thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunalrrv (talk • contribs) 21:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
"It's a beautiful thing" when you see expensive thing/almost anything you think of coming out of an automated retail machine, sadly, not much information is available. not irony. --Kunalrrv (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Kunalrrv
Hi there. I'm new to Wikipedia and have been emailing with someone at the info desk to work through this. It seems we need to submit changes to the Talk page instead of editing which I now can't do because I'm blocked, and I don't want to change the username because we are making it clear that we are the organization who just wants to edit incorrect information. Can you please unblock me so I can submit the changes through the Talk page? Thank you. 47.19.215.5 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure which user you are referring to, but no, I won't unblock you. Organizations are not allowed on Wikipedia; only individual users. Please see WP:CORPNAME. You can request a user name change or unblocking on your talk page. Jauerbackdude?/dude.15:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to change ajith kumars picture into his latest picture..can you please change it? I'm finding it difficult to change Sambhu12 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Moura Budberg
I have not visited WP for several months, and every time I do there seems to be another unpleasant surprise awaiting me!
You sent the deletion notification to me, and someone now has deleted her, without waiting for any comments. My email address is on file, so someone could at least have notified me - this is not rocket science! I agree I initially created a short article on her, which was definitely not lifted from any other source, as I am careful about this. I know that a number of people in different countries modified and expanded the article after that from newspaper sources, personal knowledge, etc. If someone lifted some text from an article, you should merely have deleted that section. In my view, she is/was interesting and notable, and definitely deserves a WP article. Of course, since the material has now been deleted, I can't check who contributed which section, but you or your colleagues should definitely have done that before taking this drastic step. She will be missed! Jpaulm (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't send you the deletion notification, I merely deleted it, because it was cued up at WP:CSD. However, it is not standard practice to notify users by any other means than their talk page. In fact, I've never heard of anyone doing that. Having said that, you're absolutely correct, the article probably should not have been deleted outright. After a bit of research, I was able to restore everything back to August of 2015. It was after that when copyrighted material was added, so it should be good to go now. Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Jauerbackdude?/dude.23:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your prompt action! I am very impressed! So now, do we have to do anything to remove it from the AfD queue (if that's the right term)? Thanks in advance, and best regards. Jpaulm (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it's no longer up for deletion. It was a candidate for speedy deletion because of the copyright issues. Now that those have been removed, there shouldn't be any other possibilities of it getting deleted. Jauerbackdude?/dude.23:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -- samtartalk or stalk17:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Pardon me, but I don't know about any edit war I was involved in. I've been reverting bad edits, fighting vandals, and making UAA reports for the past hour. Can you please explain what edit war I was involved in? Joel.Miles925 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I understand what you're saying, but I was simply removing promotional content (I do agree that could be seen as an edit war). What should I do in the future to avoid similar issues? Joel.Miles925 (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry too much about it. You obviously had good intentions. However, to answer your question, first of all, I wouldn't use rollback for pretty much anything but blatant vandalism. You can still revert, but explain why in your edit summary. Even better, communicate with the user on what is wrong with their edits. If the user continues, then report them to an appropriate notice board (WP:AIV, WP:ANI, WP:AN3, etc.). Good luck! Jauerbackdude?/dude.20:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Please avoid archiving ANI threads before at least 24 hours after close. At least 24 hours are need to allow all interested parties to view the close, regardless of time zones, sleep patterns, work patterns, and log-in patterns. The easiest way to avoid premature archiving is to Google utc time, subtract one day from that, and then avoiding archiving any threads which were closed after that time. Thank you, Softlavender (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi
Thanks for your feedback, how can I hire someone to write them about me and my profile? Can I hire you? Email me directly if possible [email protected] thank for your kind assistance and cooperation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.27.95.194 (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't have UTRS access yet, so I can't see the actual request. With only three edits, all of them vandalism, I don't have high hopes for the editor, but it's easy enough to block them again if they continue. I'll defer to your judgement. Jauerbackdude?/dude.15:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Your organization needs to meet the notability requirements for organizations on Wikipedia. Like I said, this is an encyclopedia, not a business directory or webhost. Ask yourself this: if you went to the encyclopedia section in the library, would you expect to find your organization as entry in the Encyclopædia Britannica? I doubt it. So, why are you trying to add it here other than as a promotion? Jauerbackdude?/dude.19:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
CRF has made many advances in marketing and has also been recognized around the country. It is no different than recognizing any other business. Why then would CVS have one of these. If I did not know what something was then i might look in an encyclopedia. If someone did not know what CRF was then they could look it up and see the history and importance of this. There is no promotional reason why this should be on wikipedia. I don't see many people going to wikipedia finding out out to fundraise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keatwrig001 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems prudent to provide a link to the rule violated by the wording in the image. Regardless, I have removed the speculative comments from the image and re-uploaded it. There should no longer be an issue with it as it is documenting known variations of the KFm family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btreecat (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
You're discussing this with the wrong user. I'm not the one who had an issue with the image. I reverted you adding it once because you were in a slow WP:EDITWAR over it. In WP:BRD, someone was BOLD and REVERTED the image addition. After that, a discussion needed take place on the talk page to reach a consensus before reverting it back again... and again. Jauerbackdude?/dude.17:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
No, not always. In this case, there seemed to be legitimate concerns about the content of the picture where it made more sense to not have it included until those concerns were addressed. Also, please indent and sign your posts. Jauerbackdude?/dude.18:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Jauerback
Jauerback, I would like for you to be nicer to people in the talk pages. I understand how important Wikipedia rules are, but you do not seem to undertand that other users are people too. You do not understand that other users are new and instead of welcoming them, you tell them they are "ruining the page" and blocking them. Imagine if that happened to you. Would you be happy? Also your use of informal terms, such as "messing up", is not appreciated. Jauerback, you are a good user, but it would be appreciated if you would 'lighten up' and be nicer to users. Jauerback, I hope you take this into account --Domata789 (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Готовуша
Hello, I would be grateful if You would put Serbia (Srbija) as the country that Gotovusa is in.Because it is.Kosovo for now stil in Serbia.Thank You Jedinstvenadevojka (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Whether you're right nor wrong, you're screwing up the page. Without a source, I'm not going to change something that significant just because you say so. Jauerbackdude?/dude.14:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Gotovusa is in Serbia, Kosovo is part of Serbia, I would be grateful if you put Serbia as the country Gotovusa is in.Can You fix that? Thank You Jedinstvenadevojka (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Legends & Lies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Civil War. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I'm not sure why you've come to me for this. I would suggest talking to the user first and then there other options after that if it continues. Jauerbackdude?/dude.12:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Most people edit articles that are in their area of interest or expertise. Of course, this shouldn't limit you. If you know of a notable subject that doesn't have an article yet, you can always create one. I would suggest reading through some of the links that I left on your talk page, first. Jauerbackdude?/dude.16:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. I am new to wikipedia, so I wanted to remove all things negative. Also, it appears to be rude for you to abruptly deny the user who tried to make a village from Kosovo to Serbia. Anyways, why do all wikipedia users say, "see above"? --Domata789 (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Re the reversion of my inclusion of the Rich Froning example for the BMI entry: would it help if I'd mentioned that the weight/height measurements underpinning in the BMI figure in the example came from Froning's Wiki entry ? Robma (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Administrator note I've taken a look here and agree WP:30/500 protection (ECP) would work. The BLP violations after you tried semi were from editors who aren't extended confirmed. ~ Rob13Talk18:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
As you don't appear to be presently around and factual inaccuracies currently remain on the page, I've lowered the protection level to allow extended confirmed editors to correct them. I would not consider it wheel-warring for you to reverse that action, but I do think 30/500 is an adequate protection level here. ~ Rob13Talk20:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
You recently deleted an article I was in the process of writing on UniAdmissions. Would you be able to restore it so I can modify it tocomply with the Wiki guidelines. Being new there I am in the process of learning how to edit, etc...Any help and advice will be appreaciated. AVC12 (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)AVC12
To be honest, that other article isn't a great example and may not fare any better (also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). The biggest problem both articles have is notability. There are no reliable sources that are written about either organization. If the sources listed were all clickable and readable (unlike the Bloomberg article, which isn't), there are mere mentions (if any) of the company. In fact, both articles use the same sources. Honestly, ask yourself, if you went to the library and opened up "Volume U" of Encyclopædia Britannica, would you expect to see an article about UniAdmissions? I doubt it. Finally, you need to get rid of a lot (most/all) of the external links that you're using throughout it. Jauerbackdude?/dude.10:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jauerback. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey there. Sorry to bug you but there are some unregistered IP users who are vandalizing the Bridgeport article with the addition of the word 'affluent', which is not only untrue, but also violates NPOV, given that affluency isn't technically a standardized measure, but is generally relative to one's own interpretation. Regardless of the semantics though, it is hardly classifiable as an 'affluent' area... and besides that I live hereand am well aware of it's middle-working class status, it is also clearly reflected by the relatively low median income listed in the infobox. Thank you for your assistance. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, I just now saw this. That would explain why I looked at the message below this one and thought "Didn't I already see this?" Anyway, unfortunately, it's technically not vandalism, but a content dispute, which seems to have quieted down anyway. However, in the future, try going to WP:RPP for a faster response. Jauerbackdude?/dude.21:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
That has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia. I honestly don't care all that much, but if you're right, I suppose you should start correcting all the previous years: 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, etc... Oh, and don't forget the NLDS, too: 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, etc... Jauerbackdude?/dude.20:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
But that page is written by MLB themselves so obviously that's what they hold to be the correct way. What happened in previous years is unfortunate, but the correction has to start somewhere. Jdavi333 (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
New deal for page patrollers
Hi Jauerback/Archives,
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
You are invited to participate in the 20,000 Challenge, aiming for 20,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meopa (talk • contribs) 06:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Delete Walls of text above do no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:60DC:400:75BD:EEA5:DE50:B25C (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meopa (talk • contribs)
Per this edit, is it possible to change the protection to simply block IP editors/Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access? The edit warring seems to come from one person using multiple IPs constantly ignoring other editors, failing to use even basic layout, and constantly 3 reverting and even four reverting [4][5][6][7]. In the last round of edit warring a second anonymous IP seemed to show up to war with the first. Hard to even try to achieve consensus when it is impossible to tell who is saying what, maybe having to identify themselves with accounts would be a first step. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Fountains of Bryn Mawr might know and recognize a new update is made from a previous update of his, as he have dealt in the past with the same irish ip i am facing it and truly it requires admin intervention. But its a below the belt tactic to hop on accusations created for railroading by others and apparently you missed irish ips (51.37.85.124, 51.37.42.97, 51.37.69.165). Jauerback, please review if actions after this edit is an improvement or not. 117.213.18.84 (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. I received a notification at the top of my page that I had been mentioned by another editor, so with excitement I went to see what it was, and it was User talk:BatteryIncluded, who you recently blocked for making personal attacks, telling me to f-off.
The sockpuppet this editor is referring to is in regard to a message I left today at User talk:EdJohnston#Concern.
I saw, but they weren't directly telling you that. Granted, they are skirting it, but I'm not going to block someone for that. I would suggest doing your best to avoid any contact with them in the future. Jauerbackdude?/dude.13:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't ask to have any contact. This user, who is blocked for making personal attacks, pinged me to their page to tell me to f-off. That's about it. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jauerback. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
You destroyed historical evidences regarding the deletionist vandals that destroyed the first nomic bank.
Curse upon you. Bow bank4 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
YOU DELETIONIST BASTARD. THE WAY YOU DELETE 11 YEARS OLD EVIDENCES OF THE DELETIONIST VANDALISM IN WIKIPEDIA., THE SAME WAY YOU WILL BE DELETED. THIS IS A CURSE UPON YOU, AND UPON ALL YOU DELETIONIST DECENDANTS. Bow bank 5 (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, could I request that the protection level to the Poland article is returned to Semi-protected — after the recent upgrade which expired, article protection was completely removed and not dropped back to Semi-protected status, since then anno IPs started to disrupt the page. --E-960 (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Request to speedy close the following ANI discussion
Here it is. There were attempts to continue the discussion, even though you yourself had explicitly stated that edit summaries are not compulsory. I do not wish to be bothered by a trivial issue any longer. May I request the discussion be ceased? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
No, it's quite obvious that others disagree with that. Quite frankly, I believe that you should use edit summaries, but I honestly didn't foresee the ANI thread going any where, so that's why I closed it. Obviously, I was wrong. Jauerbackdude?/dude.11:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
It's no longer about me conceding to the proposal. It's now about my own willingness in using edit summaries as stated in the proposal; you can check my latest contributions for verification. Hence I request the discussion be closed down, as it no longer serves any purpose. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Being hacked?? Received message on the contribution I didn't make.
I'm not sure if it's just a glitch or I'm being hacked but I received a message saying the contribution I made was undone when I don't even have an Wikipedia account.
I apologize in advance if this question has been asked in advance but I really have no idea how to navigate through the Wipedia pages.
Is this a common occurrence? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.47.109 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, someone on your IP address made this edit, which was not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, so it got reverted. That was the message you were seeing. If it wasn't you, or someone in your home, then you more than likely are operating from a dynamic IP, which means that your IP address changes every few hours/days/weeks. So, you may not ever even see this message if your IP address changes. With or without an account, this can be a common occurrence if someone disagrees with an edit you've made. Jauerbackdude?/dude.10:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.
Hey, someone who is not in anyway connected to the band Steppenwolf came on the Steppenwolf band wiki page under members and did some removal and adding of text that he had no right to edit. When looking into it more we found the name Larry Green and that's a person whos in a steppenwolf tribute band and has no connection to Steppenwolf. Hes under the name Steppenwolfman. If you can please bar him.... We are trying to edit out the damage he is causing ... thanks .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by FormerSteppenwolfmember (talk • contribs) 10:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Anyone can edit any page here. They don't have to be connected to the band, in fact, it's better that they don't have a connection. Please discuss the issues with that you may have with their edits either on the article's talk page or on their talk page. Jauerbackdude?/dude.10:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
