Ground Zero

 

"the present tense indicates the present condition"
Thank you for quality articles on Canadian politics and their people, such as Parti Québécois leadership election, 2005 and Janet Ecker, for tireless copyediting, "there are lots of Democratic and Republican parties around the world" and "the present tense indicates the present condition", for a user page full of advice, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (24 December 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

A year ago, you were the 891st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 891 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I note you didn't make reference to the relevant guideline in closing Tommy (album). Would it be possible to update your close with reference to guideline? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Following your invitation, generally I think you have communicated well. However in your post at 12:28, 22 June 2015 you replied accusing another editor of doing stuff which they hadn't done for at least a post or two. This had the effect of winding that editor up again. Graemp (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this feedback on the discussion at Talk:42nd Canadian federal election. I have been frustrated that his disrespectful behaviour keeps recurring. I take your point generally that it is best to let sleeping dogs lie, but in this case I was responding to his comment about conspiracy theories, which he had repeated. I should have made it clear that I was focusing on that comment and not on other issues. Regards, Ground Zero | t 20:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Hope you're doing well. I noticed that you made an edit at No Gun Ri Massacre, which has seen a very heated debate between Cjhanley and WeldNeck which has seethed for years.

Part of it revolves around a sourcing dispute, namely, the credibility of the U.S. No Gun Ri Review Report, the initial AP reports (particularly the credibility of certain eyewitnesses), and of historian Robert Bateman. In general, the page has been a battleground, with frequent personal attacks, accusations of POV, bold edits against consensus, and so on, although it has calmed down as of late. It is important to note that Cjhanley is in fact one of the AP reporters who initially broke the No Gun Ri story, and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize; also, WeldNeck has accused him of a conflict of interest. Both editors have compiled extensive lists of their grievances, and have dragged one another to ANI: [1][2][3][4][5] WeldNeck also attacked Cjhanley as a sock: [6]. Neither editor is blameless, to say the least.

For some time, I, along with Timothyjosephwood, Wikimedes, and Irondome have attempted to mediate, and we have successfully imposed an unofficial "freeze" on editing the page without prior proposals. While the situation is not urgent, I would appreciate any help an experienced editor such as yourself could offer. If you are interested, I can also provide some sources to provide background, although some can also be found on the page's external links category.

Thanks very much,

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear GroundZero, thank you for making a swift change to the page Freiburger Turnerschaft von 1844. I appreciate your efforts in the battle against vaguery, and the explanation of "currently" as an unnecessary adverb was very helpful. Sincerely, AmiableWookie (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Any chance you would you replace the | in your sig with the entity code |? This would prevent its appearance there from breaking templates when your sig appears within them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I don't understand what the problem is, but I've made the change. I hope that works. Regards, Ground Zero | t 13:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • It will. :-) It was that the bare | in your sig was being interpreted as a parameter marker. See difference between these two:
    • "Foo!" – Ground Zero
    • "Foo!" – Ground Zero | t

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Toronto Transit Commission may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/About_the_TTC/Commission_Meetings/Chief_Executive_Officers_Report_-_Period_5_(April_29_to_May_.pdf |publisher=Toronto Transit Commission |title=Chief Executive Officer's Report |
• Valve) on the [[T-series (Toronto subway car)|T1]] subway and [[Line 3 Scarborough]] trains ( except for the new [[Toronto Rocket]] subway trains, which utilize a two-way intercom for

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

GroundZero,

(Sorry if I am contacting you in the wrong place, I am not sure how to do it any other way)

In the talk:Matthew Steen page you mentioned: "At the same time, SJE did remove a whole lot of referenced content."

Sort of depends on how we are defining "referenced." Not only were there numerous passages with made up links, there were also numerous references that linked to documents unrelated to Steen. There were also numerous instances where he cited documents that were unrelated to whatever he was trying to say.

If you can point one (or more) out to me that I messed up, I will gladly revert them.

V/r,

SteveJEsposito (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ground, could you possibly look at I/P 83.216.94.186's recent edits on Keith Vaz? Thanks in advance JRPG (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Capitalization_for_Board_of_Aldermen.2C_etc. as it relates to style guidance you recently helped clarify. Rupert Clayton (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

As an admin, you should familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. While you've been busy reverting me, I had discussed your edits on the talk page. Please don't use edit summaries in place of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

• My apologies. I did not notice the discussion on the talk page. You are quite right. Ground Zero | t 19:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oshawa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Member of Provincial Parliament. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wisconsin Green Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Green Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking it might be fun to submit Progressive Conservative leadership election, 1983 for consideration as a good article. Any recommendations as to what we can do to make it better? Knoper (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

My concern is that parts of the article are written in a very journalistic style, which is not what we should be aiming for. An encyclopedia article should report the facts, rather than tell a good story. We should especially be avoiding journalese. As well, as is often the case when many people are editing the same text, some of the sentences are growing long and unwieldy as different people add bits and pieces to sentences without trying to read the result. I will take another run-though to copyedit this. Another concern is going to be that it relies heavily on the Martin, Gregg and Perlin book, which is obviously the authoritative source, but I think people don't like to see such reliance on one source. It may be necessary to go back to newspapers of the day to bump it up a bit. Ground Zero | t 13:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Did you notice this edit? Fences&Windows 00:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I saw and reverted that edit. I didn't know what to make of it - whether it was intended as a compliment or as vandalism. Thanks for pointing it out. Ground Zero | t 22:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lachlan Maclean, 6th Laird of Coll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norman MacLeod. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

  In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. 2.27.75.26 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

How is "Barclays Bank Canada" a British article? It was chartered in Canada and operated exclusively in Canada. This is just sloppy and heavy-handed editing on your part. Also, "license" as a verb is normally spelled with an "s" in both UK and Canadian English. "Licence" is the noun. Ground Zero | t 01:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

It was a subsidiary (currently a branch) of a British company operating internationally, so you cannot claim national ownership. The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other. An article should not be edited simply to switch from one variety of English to another. 2.27.75.26 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree that Barclays Bank is a UK company. If it were acquired by Bank of America, it would remain principally a UK company, chartered in and operating in the UK, and I would oppose changing the spelling in its article to US spelling. In any event, this discussion will be resolved on the article talk pages, not on a user's talk page, do take up the discussion there. Ground Zero | t 00:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Times (of London) is owned by News Corp, an American company. Should we change the spelling of words in its article to US spelling? Ground Zero | t 02:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

More importantly, I did not edit any article to switch from one variant of English to another. The edit in question was a change of "licence" as a verb to "license", which is the usual spelling in both Canada and the UK. Ground Zero | t 02:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• same year, Comair introduced its first international flights from Cincinanti to Toronto. In 1992, [[Comair moved into Concourse C, as [[Delta Air Lines]] gradually continued to acquire more of the
• work=[[Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]| date=August 2, 2009| accessdate=August 2, 2009}}</ref> Once [[Delta Air Lines|Delta acquired Northwest, Comair's older fleet, which was costly as a result of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• same year, Comair introduced its first international flights from Cincinanti to Toronto. In 1992, [[Comair moved into Concourse C, as [[Delta Air Lines]] gradually continued to acquire more of the
• work=[[Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]| date=August 2, 2009| accessdate=August 2, 2009}}</ref> Once [[Delta Air Lines|Delta acquired Northwest, Comair's older fleet, which was costly as a result of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bob Cole (sportscaster) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• into the [[Hockey Hall of Fame]] in 1996 as the recipient recipientFoster Hewitt Memorial Award]] for broadcasting excellence.<ref name=Inks>{{cite news |title=Hockey Night in Canada inks Cole,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ground Zero.

I do apologize for making these mistakes, but please understand that I did not make these mistakes to intentionally inconvenience anybody. I will do my best to avoid making mistakes such as these from this moment forward, however; you may find other mistakes that I have already made in other articles. If you do find more of my mistakes, I hope that you point them out to me so that I may fix them rather than indiscriminately undoing entire edits of mine. I will do my best to track down any mistake that I may have already made and fix it.

Thanks in advance,

—  SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I do apologize for my recent edit of the Ishme-Dagan I article. I intended in immediately correcting my mistakes (such as using the Akkadian names for people and places), however; the power in my building temporarily went out and so I lost my internet connection along with all the progress I was making. I have now done my best to correct these mistakes. If you notice any more mistakes, please point them out to me. —  SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please explain how this sentence is misleading. Also explain how having a third-party opinion of the TWP by the Southern Poverty Law Center, but no third-party opinion of BAMN, contributes to the article's balance and neutrality. --50.46.239.77 (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Because it isn't what the source says, and the source is from 11 years ago, which that statement doesn't mention. Ground Zero | t 23:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The source says that BAMN was discussed during a seminar on domestic terrorism, and that the seminar was dedicated to discussion of groups "thought to be involved in terrorist activities." And this is exactly what the sentence you removed said. In your reply, don't forget to address my second point about third-party opinions and neutrality. --50.46.239.77 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

And it left out the bit about the FBI acknowledging that Michigan police had information that BAMN had been peaceful, and that this was 21 years ago with no further claims of BAMN being possibly involved in terrorist activities since. When you add those bits on, you see that there is virtually nothing left to this accusation. If you can't come up with something better that this, you really have to conclude that there is nothing to it. Ground Zero | t 23:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

You still have not addressed my second point. Also, the claim that "this was 21 years ago" (which is false, the seminar was in 2002) does nothing to invalidate the fact that the FBI had designated BAMN as a group thought to be involved in terrorist activities. Neither does your second point about the Michigan police. --50.46.239.77 (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

21 years ago was a typo. It should be 14 years ago. "Designated" is the ACLU's word. The FBI did not use that word, which sounds like they are on some list of "designated organizations", which they are not. What we have is an allegation not proven by the FBI, brought into question by the Michigan Police, and the FBI has taken no further action and made no further comment for 14 years. But you wouldn't get that impression from the statement that I removed. That is why it is misleading.

The SLPC description of TWP is from October 2015, not 14 years ago, so it is current. Ground Zero | t 23:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

And you still have not addressed my second point. Your claim that the FBI "has made no further comment for 14 years" needs a citation. How does this reworked paragraph sound to you? "In January 2002, officials from the FBI and Secret Service attended a symposium dedicated to issue of domestic terrorism. BAMN, along with other groups 'thought to be involved in terrorist activities,' were discussed during the meeting. The Michigan State Police, which was also in attendance, noted that BAMN's past demonstrations 'have been peaceful.'" --50.46.239.77 (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am assuming that the FBI had made no further comment on BAMN because no one has provided one. If the FBI had, we wouldn't be spending so much time fussing over this claim from 14 years ago. What you wrote above is factually correct, but way too detailed for this article. A vague, unsubstantiated, out-of-date claim about one of the organizations doesn't belong in this article. It could be in the BAMN article, of course, and in fact something very much like it is because I put there. Ground Zero | t 00:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to go with bold italicized text now, since italics alone didn't do it: Also explain how having a third-party opinion of the TWP by the Southern Poverty Law Center, but no third-party opinion of BAMN, contributes to the article's balance and neutrality. Also, the article has a section called "Participants," and a three- or four-sentence third-party description of one of the participant's history is hardly "way too detailed." Furthermore, we're not in the business of substantiating the FBI's allegation; we only report what the FBI alleged about the group. You're an administrator, so I'm shocked that you do not understand this. --50.46.239.77 (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Look, we report relevant information. Balance does not require us to use outdated information on one organisation just because we have recent information on another. Find something recent on BAMN if you think it is needed. What the FBI thought may have happened 14 years ago isn't enough. The articles is about something that happened this week. This is a current event, not history. Ground Zero | t 11:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to take your continued refusal to answer my second point as a tacit admission that balance has not been achieved. In the past, you seemed to understand how Wikipedia works when the discussion focused on the TWP, but your behavior when the discussion concerns BAMN betrays your bias. I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is and start acting like an administrator. If you find that difficult, then please extricate yourself from this dispute and go edit elsewhere. Instead of being constructive, you fling everything at the wall to see what sticks. The only thing outdated about the FBI's report is the claim the Michigan State Police made about BAMN being "peaceful." BAMN is a self-described militant organization that initiated the violence last Sunday and has been implicated in violence at many other protests. In any case, while the article may be about a recent event, the "Participants" section is intended to provide readers context, and context is achieved by discussing the participants' history and goals. The TWP was only established in January 2016; BAMN has a much longer history. You admitted that my reworked paragraph is "factually correct," but objected that it is "way too detailed." When challenged on this point, you failed to defend your objection. I have since added that reworked paragraph into the article. If you remove my edit without explanation, my attempt at dialogue will have failed and I will initiate the arbitration process.--50.46.239.77 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

This issue is not whether BSMN is violent or not. The events in Sacranentob sure that they are. The issue if whether the "terrorist" label belong in the Sacramento article. I have put it in the BAMN article. It does not belong here because of was so qualified, it is so old, and there has been nothing further on it. The FBI statement is 24 years old. Not just the Michigan Police statement. You have not been able to provide anything recent to justify the terrorist label. I have explained my position. You don't have to agree with me, but accusing me of not defending my position is ridiculous. And making threats is not a constructive way of dealing with issues in Wikipedia. Especially for an unregistered editor. Ground Zero | t 16:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Humaninstitut is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humaninstitut until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Hi, I have nominated a page you contributed to for deletion and wanted to let you know about it as part of WP:Good faith Menschpædia (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Presto card page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ground Zero.

I completely understand your concerns. I sincerely apologize for the mistakes that I have made. Please understand that I did not do this to intentionally inconvenience anybody. I intended to correct my mistakes as quickly and as efficiently as possible. I still intend to correct my mistakes as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Again, I do apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joint Precision Approach and Landing System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emissions control. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

In response to my mistake moves on the French-language Radio-Canada TV networks, I saw that someone moved Ici ARTV to ICI Artv and made the mistake to assume that was correct without second guessing. I should have posted this on its respective talk page, rather than moving the rest of the ICI articles to match ARTV. I apologize for mistake and this case will greater improve me as a contributor. Rewind Wrestling (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. I had not seen the move at Ici ARTV. I think it would be best for you to move the other articles back now. I will post messages on the talk pages to help avoid these mistakes being made again. Regards, Ground Zero | t 19:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have explained my edit at length at Talk:Andscacs. If you want to discuss this change, I am happy to do so. If you are just going to revert and edit war to get your way, you will be violating WP:3RR and can be blocked from editing. See WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. IQ125 (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's pretty childish. I posted this message on your talk page, you have deleted it and posted it on my talk page with your signature. As the article's talk page shows, I have explained my edit on the talk page; you have not. Ground Zero | t 14:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for things including (but not limited to) catching the redundancy of my writing on interactive storytelling and being humorous about it. ;) Rroberie (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the coffee! Unfortunately, not everyone saw the humour. One editor on another article found that comment to be insulting, so I had to apologize. I'm glad you took it in next the spirit in which it was intended. Best regards, Ground Zero | t 15:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

First, Hi!

I'm a huge admirer of Wikipedia, and wish I had the time to learn the ropes and contribute. Instead, I send a small amount of money and the occasional bit of intervention.

Two notes today: I quite approve of your intervention to prevent self-interested dolts adding their causes to the page on the Toronto Trump Hotel and Tower. On the other hand, the article is now seriously out of date. The tower is in receivership, badly managed, and the subject of multi-directional litigation. I hope somebody will update the article appropriately.

Then I came to your page and found you quoting Merriam-Webster as an authority. I'm afraid this is something that needs extreme care. If you want an American Dictionary, the best idea is always American Heritage. Warning: I am a former editor on American Heritage magazines, same company but two floors below, and used to be friends with and an admirer of a number of their staff.

Merriam-Webster is the descendant of formerly great companies, Merriam and Webster, but they spent a disastrous generation in thrall to the American academic fad for demotic language. They allowed themselves to mix up reporting on what people said and wrote with stating the commonly understood meanings of words.

From about 2010 onwards they came to the conclusion that this had been a mistake, and they have repaired their ways. New material from Merriam-Webster is at least making the attempt to report accurately the commonly accepted meanings of words, and no longer giving equal weight to widely used solecisms. This will eventually return them to respectability. It will not undo the damage of the last generation's errors.

Very best wishes in your important work,

-dlj.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks first your feedback, DLJ. To be honest, M-W was the first that came up when I googled. I am interested to learn that there is such keen rivalry in next the dictionary world, and am glad to know that the people who compile them are so passionate about the language. Best regards, Ground Zero | t 15:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I actually share your disdain for corporate stylings, and have removed many ™ symbols from articles. The exclamation mark in "Yahoo!" particularly irks me. I just didn't feel it applied in this case, and obviously it's somewhat subjective what the common name is. Thanks for being a reasonable person, we need more like you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

You put forward a better argument than mine, so fair is fair. Regards, Ground Zero | t 14:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ground Zero.

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.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Point taken! Chrisdoyleorwell (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Quite alright. I'm glad you agree. Ground Zero | t

Hello. I noticed that you recently created Armond Rizzo, a biography of a living person that is completely unsourced. The subject also appears to fail the relevant notability guideline. Rather than tagging for deletion, I trust that you, an experienced editor, will know how to fix this. Please add some reliable sources that support the content. Thanks in advance. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I understand. This started out as a translation from the Spanish Wikipedia, but when I tried to save it I was warned that the sources were proscribed from English Wikipedia. I have tried to find sources, and will try again, but it will probably end up being deleted. Ground Zero | t 17:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)  Reply

What you say is wrong. The correct name is Czechia. The article should be moved to Czechia. Eleni Kaltsi (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have explained what Wikipedia policy is and how it applies, and how you can propose changes if you want to. But Wikipedia works on consensus. It isn't called Elenikaltsipedia, so you don't get to have your own way here. On your own webpage you can call it what you want. For the record, I hope that Czechia becomes commonly used in English as I prefer that to Czech Republic. When it does, I will support changing the Wikipedia usage. Ground Zero | t 15:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Armond Rizzo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just low-grade nominations. Atrocious BLP-violaing text whose only sources are award nomination announcements and a press release. Sadly not quite eligible to be speedied.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ground Zero! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time.

Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

  Administrator changes

  NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

  Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

  Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

  Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

  Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

  Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

the ip has not been warned - but it is close to third re-post of non encyclopediac material JarrahTree 12:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ha!. I considered making that same edit but I thought I'd give him a chance to find a usable ref first. He's already at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Conhui so it's not going to make much difference. I'm not even sure if the short-lived 2013 reincarnation even belong sin this article. I think it's more of a case of a former employee taking over a defunct name. Anyways, glad to have another set of eyes on it. Meters (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

It looked to me like he had added some text and added the "CN" tag to it himself, as if to say, "someone else should look this up for me". I could be wrong. But it looks like a conflict of interest situation (user name: Cdist07), so I think a firm hand is needed here. I'll keep my eyes on it too. Ground Zero | t 20:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

To be fair, one of the CNs had been there from 2012, and the other one I jsut added because I had removed the YouTube video he was trying to use as a ref. I've raised WP:YOUTUBE on the article's talkpage. Meters (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 06:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Nice work at Georgetown, Ontario. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why, thank-you! Ground Zero | t 19:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kawartha Credit Union is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kawartha Credit Union until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Per this edit, what should the reaction be? I reverted it first, then undid my edit due to my unsure thinking. The links don't need to be changed, they were fine as is, and this is a controversial edit, I feel, per the current consensus on changing Czech Republic to Czechia, being that it should be automatically reverted. This user is aware of this, and has been involved in discussuons on this, yet did not use an edit summary, and marked the edit as minor. I'm confused on what the thinking is on edits like these and how to proceed. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Toronto Vote 2000 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into 2000 Toronto municipal election. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

That was 14 years ago tomorrow. I have learned a few thinks about editing in Wikipedia since then. Ground Zero | t 03:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect John H. Cox presidential campagin 2008. Since you had some involvement with the John H. Cox presidential campagin 2008 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I created a page 6 weeks ago. It was rejected a number of times, but was since updated a bunch of times, most recently by a senior editor and is now good to go. It's just awaiting someone to review it. I went to the Admin List to ask someone to take a peek and think your name is pretty cool so thought would ping you to see if you're able to assist. If so, it's Draft:Lightricks MaskedSinger (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ground Zero! Since you were the creator of the No Frills Supermarkets article, just giving you a note that a merge discussion is currently underway regarding it. With only three locations and a few sources, the article does not meet notability guidelines. The small amount of content in the lead can be merged into the article relating to its parent company, SpartanNash. I'll leave this deletion discussion open for one week (until 9 January 2020). Please post any comments or concerns on Talk:SpartanNash#Proposed merge with No Frills Supermarkets. Have a great day! Daylen (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Because you were a major contributor to both articles, I would just like to let you know that I've opened a discussion about merging both articles (I find the districts too similar for seperate articles). Username⁶⁸⁹² 15:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am also proposing merging Gatineau (electoral district) with Gatineau—La Lievre for the same reason, please discuss here. Username⁶⁸⁹² 16:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

The article British Columbia Citizens Alliance Now has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable political party.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Awesome

Ten years!

Good wishes on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I was looking through some unreferenced articles and it looks like you've created many of them, such as 1911 Ontario general election, 1919 Ontario general election, etc (as Kevintoronto). Do you have any idea where you got this data from, when you created the articles? I've been unable to find good sources on the subject. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Elliot321 That was 15 years ago now, when Wikipedia was much less fussy about requiring references to reliable sources, so unfortunately I did not include the source. I expect that the information came from Elections Ontario, but they have reconfigured their website, so the information may no longer be available in the same format. Ground Zero | t 06:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I've managed to find the info on that site and added the relevant refs to the articles. Nice to see so many {{unreferenced}} tags disappear after so long, eh? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Good work! And happy new year. Ground Zero | t 06:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Parti conscience universelle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No demonstrated notability. Short-lived political party (FR wiki page shows it's defunct) that never ran any candidates.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dominion Automobile Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominion Automobile Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Parti conscience universelle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parti conscience universelle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Seagull123 Φ 21:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am here to give you a heads up on an potential threat, on the article for Omar Mateen there was a pending revision by the IP address 38.142.176.26 stating this: "(OPENLY DEGRADING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN OF MUSLIM FAITH BY STATING HOMESEXUAL TENDENCIES AND ACTS, COMPLETELY UNTRUE AND PATHETIC. CHANGE THIS IMMEDIATELY OR I WILL ATTACK WIKI AND DELETE ALL FILES.)". I am sure that this threat by the user is empty but I thought that I should go ahead and alert an admin either way just incase. Discount Horde (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect CIA activities by region: Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 1#CIA activities by region: Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Ground Zero! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Ground Zero! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is a very notable milestone, you should be proud of the work you've accomplished on wiki. We don't often get told so, but it's important to do what we do, allowing knowledge to spread into the world. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

 

Happy New Year!

Ground Zero,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Template:LegSeats2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I hope you’re doing well.

I have become a frequent editor on WP and have written several articles, but I do not have administrator rights. Yesterday I came across the edit history of Jeff Rupert and found some past edits that appeared defamatory in nature. Although they were reverted for the current revision of the article, they are still relatively accessible and contain content that highly personal and targeting in nature. SHB said that you have admin rights, so I wondered if you could delete all the revisions of that article by Rupertlover123. Thanks! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 11:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Done. Ground Zero | t 12:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks! I really appreciate it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Radical chrétien is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical chrétien until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

For some reason Twinkle's auto-generated notifications are being put in User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 2. Do you know why that's happening? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what Twinkle is. I don't see any notifications in that archive. Ground Zero | t 01:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply