Talk:Daniel McClellan/Archive 1

Additions and Revert
I understand why this revert was made, but despite not being in the style we use, and although a lot of the information was probably undue and often referenced to self published sources, I do note that there were some good references in there (just not properly formatted). Any of those references that demonstrate notability (see section above) should be in the article. , even though your edits were reverted, I hope you can discuss them here. We might find a consensus to put some of it back in. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Would’ve been better to clean up than a revert Jack4576 (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)