User talk:BAICAN XXX


 * BAICAN XXX

Skype plugin
Hi BAICAN XXX, you seem to have a Skype plugin in your browser that's producing its own markup on pages that you edit (example: ). You may want to consider disabling the plugin, or using the "view changes" button to ensure that no extraneous code is added onto the page. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Romanian diacritic signs
Hi. I see you have been fixing the spelling in a number of pages like Ialomița County. You also added link on that page to Category:Ialomița County. However, that category page is a redirect to Category:Ialomiţa County, and adding a link to the redirect page does not fix the spelling of the category. In order to move the category to the correctly-spelled title, you need to follow the speedy category renaming process. Basically you have to add   to the category page you want to rename, then follow the instructions in the message box to list it on the WP:CFD page. It would be helpful if you would do this for all categories with titles containing the incorrect diacritics. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. Once again, after you moved Neamţ County to Neamț County, you added to the article a link to Category:Neamț County. Just doing that will not work.  You need to go to the Category:Neamţ County page, and add to the top of it {{subst:cfr-speedy|Neamț County}}, then follow the link this creates to list the renaming on WP:CFD.  You would also want to do this for all subcategories that contain "Neamţ County" in their names.  Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please hear my proposal: for consistency's sake, what say we try to ensure that all the articles with "old" diacritics are moved to "new" versions, and only then start making changes in the body of text, and throughout the body of text (for instance, in Nicolae Iorga, you only changed two out of umpteen diacritics: do you plan to come back for all the rest, in the years to come?). If one only focuses on changing the titles for now, by moving existing articles to new titles, we get consistency and stability - the links to the articles with the "old" version will still point to the "new" version titles if we click them. If you decide to focus on that, you/we could ask wiki experts to build you a bot, that will do this automatically, searching for certain parameters (such as inclusion in certain Romania-related categories); that may not cover 100% out of the entries, but it will cover 80% at least - and it will be much easier and faster, because I can't imagine you want to spend eternity doing what you've doing here these past weeks. What you're doing helpful all in all, but I think you're underestimating the effort, and the results for now appear chaotic.

Then we can operate on the body of text itself, either by bot or by hand. But if we cover titles first, then we know that we're not changing bluelinks into redlinks.

After we automate the task (if we get around to, that is), we can check the results and make the necessary changes, instead of the much more tiresome alternative - which would be to endlessly edit articles. The drawbacks of bot editing are smaller by comparison; they refer to the articles that will be missed by the bot, for one reason or another, or to articles where Romanian diacritics meet with Turkish or Azeri diacritics (for instance in Nicolae Iorga: Şerif Mardin, not Șerif Mardin). Dahn (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello? Dahn (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Felul in care acele persoane ajung sa fie interesate este daca le sugerati. Eu unul nu stiu sa creez un bot, si imi dau seama ca probleme tehnice pe care le-ar presupune un astfel de bot sunt mai mari decat pt cazul wikipediai in romana. De ce? Pentru ca, de exemplu, wikipedia in engleza ar trebui sa diferentieze mult mai clar contextul, sintaxa, care separa Ştefeşti de Şükürbəyli, Jabrayil. Deci problema ar trebui privita simultan de oameni care inteleg problema diacriticelor in romana/turca si modul de realizare a unui bot competent.

Ceea ce faceti dvs. nu este gresit (din punctul meu de vedere, nu e nici bine, nici rau), dar este ineficient si, trebuie sa o spun, putin iritant in forma asta: "eu incep cu treizeci de articole, pe restul sa le faceti voi". Chiar si asa, nu va cenzurez: in final, sa ajungem undeva, in oriare din variante, dar cu rezultate coerente, nu haotice. Dar in genul de editari din Nicolae Iorga, nu faceti, cel putin deocamdata, un lucru coerent: sunt cateva zeci de cuvinte acolo care folosesc diacr. "turcesti" (unele pentru ca sunt turcesti, desigur); ce rezolvati daca schimbati doua, mai ales daca acele doua articole sunt accesibile prin amandoua variantele (ca si prin Iasi sau Botosani)? Nimic, in afara de a da un aspect haotic unei pagini, zic eu, destul de bine scrisa altfel. Nu e mai bine sa abordam problema global pentru titluri, si dupa aia sa revenim asupra corpului de text propriu-zis pentru a schimba si ce diacritice mai raman? Nu ar fi mai bine ca sarcina asta sa fie preluata, automat, de vreun bot?

Aveti dreptate sa vreti schimbarea, presupun, dar nu o realizati prin cele mai naturale si mai de perspectiva mijloace. Am evitat pana acum problema (complexitatea ei ma intimideaza), dar o sa incerc sa abordez cativa utilizatori cu cunostinte de lingvistica (engleza si romana) si competente in programare - poate ei ne pot ajuta cu o metoda mai putin extenuanta. Dahn (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Stati putin, sa ne intelegem. Eu nu vorbesc doar de "suprapunerea" termenilor turcesti si romanesti intr-o serie de articole, ci de existenta unui numar mult mai mare de articole unde diacriticele nu trebuiesc schimbate: Şükürçü, Şerif Gören, Beşiktaş, Şemsi Pasha Mosque si multe altele, care nu ar pune probleme pe wikipedia in engleza, pun o problema de fond aici. Iat-o: cum programati un bot sa nu efectueze asemenea corectari, si sa se limiteze la Romania? cum il faceti sa diferentieze instantaneu intre o grupa de articole si o alta? Solutii tehnice exista, dar ele nu trebuie teoretizate, ci puse in practica.
 * In ce priveste optimismul, poate ca aveti dreptate, dar va rog nu folositi wikipedia ca o platforma pentru un proiect pe care nu stiti daca il puteti termina. Nevoit, dar inevitabil, daca ati lasat la jumatate, ati perturbat pur siu simplu articolele si legaturile interne, intr-un mod pe care altcineva trebuie sa-l repare. V-am spus de Nicolae Iorga, dar in timpul asta perseverati cu acelasi tip de editare pe jumatate: in House of Bogdan-Mușat, diacriticile "noi" se termina unde v-ati plictisit dvs. Si oricum totul e pe jumatate, pe mai putin, atata timp cat schimbam titlul si nu venim sa schimbam dupa aia si textul insusi, fara sa distrugem continutul, fara sa inlocuim legaturi "albastre" cu legaturi "rosii" - daca trebuie facut, trebuie facut pana la capat: toate articolele trebuie mutate, si dupa aia toate textele modificate.
 * In punctul de fata, ceea ce faceti si marturisirea de scop aferenta ("o sensibilizare a subiectului") este la limita politicilor wikipedia. Vedeti WP:POINT, WP:DIS - wikipedia nu prea accepta sa fie "sensibilizata" prin mutari facute mai mult sau mai putin la intamplare. Va sfatuiesc insistent sa cautati un consens pe tema asta, si daca se poate o solutie globala, pentru ca altfel pur si simplu nu este o solutie reala. Dahn (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mai dati-mi voie sa va ilustrez complexitatea problemei: inmultiti aceasta categorie cu 41, si explicati-mi cum si cand aveti de gand sa va ocupati nu doar de mutarea articolelor, ci si de inlocuirea tuturor din cele doua serii de diacritice problematice in fiecare din acestea; dupa aia, vizualizati cam ce inseamna ca fiecare aspect al vietii din Romania de azi si de alaltaieri este acoperit in articole (inclusiv multe fara diacritice in titluri, sau multe unde referirile la cutare cuvant cu diacritice romanesti sunt pasagere). Va spun eu: pregatiti-va sa inmultiti totalul obtinut cu o mie, poate si mai mult. Ce ziceti, terminam pana saptamana viitoare? Dahn (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Târgu Mureș with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Alex discussion ★ 21:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:Aleksa Lukic in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.  Alex discussion ★ 22:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Alexa, deci rezultă că nu cunoști problema "diacriticilor românești", dacă-mi ceri sa-ți explic despre ele doar în engleză! I'm sorry...BAICAN XXX (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Renaming of Romanian articles
Looking back at your talk page, there seems to be a recurring problem with you renaming articles about Romanian topics, changing the diacritical marks. The latest example was Deşteaptă-te, române! which you moved to a name that doesn't agree with the sources. I have reverted this move and must insist that your provide an explanation (in English) for your actions. Further undiscussed page move may lead to you being blocked temporarily from editing. Favonian (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is War of the Romanian diacritics. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Given your refusal to stop and discuss your edits, which are clearly contentious, I have temporarily blocked this account. If you have any response to the points raised on the noticeboard as linked in Favonian's comment above then you are welcome to place them here for consideration. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Este injust !

 * Voi nici nu mi-ați lăsat timp să vă răspund, eu am făcut mii și mii de corectări la Wp.en, și spontan veniți voi doi (Știți limba română (Romanian)?) și găsiți asta incorect! Dar aveți voi doi o rezolvare globală (?), atunci puneți-o în aplicare în cele 48 de ore în care eu (BAICAN XXX) rămân blocat, dacă nu aveți soluție generală, atunci m-ați blocat spontan, inerțial (din viteză). Toate corecturile de diacritice făcute de mine sunt corecte, verificabile, dar eu nu am posibilitatea unei soluții globale. Dar nici voi nu o faceți (mod Software) în 48 de ore, asta este clar! Deci o continuare a blocării mele după acest termen de 48 de ore va fi un abuz discriminator la adresa limbii române, cel puțin d.p.m.d. vedere! Bye, bye. Baican.BAICAN XXX (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Baican, nu cred ca intelegeti felul in care functioneaza wikipedia, adica pe baza consensului. Pentru o mutare de asa anvergura, care trebuie facuta cu cap si coada, consensul este o necesitate stringenta. Ati urmarit obiectiile mele si ale altora, ati vazut ca discutia in jurul actiunilor dvs. a provocat o dezbatere mai larga, ati vazut ca sunt probleme tehnice de care habar n-aveati cand v-ati apucat sa schimbati articol cu articol. V-am spus ca, si daca aveti dreptate de unul singur,tot nu e o idee buna sa mutati aiureao parte din articole - "munca" asta nu trebuie si nu poate fi facuta de un singur editor. Dvs. nici nu vorbiti engleza, dar vreti sa va inteleaga toata lumea. Serios acum, ce va asteptati altceva decat sa fiti blocat? Ii acuzati pe ceilalti ca nu inteleg problema, spuneti ca a va intrerupe actiunea este o discriminare la adresa limbii romane (limba in care s-a scris si se va scrie cu ambele seturi de diacriticie, pentru ca unul e mai practic)... dar dvs. nu aveti, se pare, nicio preocupare pentru parerea celorlalti, chiar si atunci cand este exprimata in limbi pe care le intelegeti. Cat despre solutia "mod software", eu unul o sustin, dar pana atunci, si dupa aia, vreau o coerenta, oricare varianta se lasa aleasa - nu, nu este o "corectare" ceea ce pierde o legatura interna sau lasa un text cu fundul in doua luntrii. Dahn (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Helău, Dahn!
Există și multe aprecieri justificabile în cele ce le-ați scris la pagina asta...! Dar, concret d.p.m.d. vedere:
 * 1) eu înțeleg perfect că Wp. este un proiect ce trebuie bazat pe consens, dar uneori asta cere mult prea mult timp și noi rămânem în  urmă (prea!);
 * 2) "cu cap și coadă" înseaamnă la problema diacriticilor aplicarea unei (inexistente  și deocamdată neașteptabile) soluții globale pe care și eu aș saluta-o bucuros;
 * 3) eu n-am mutat aiurea articole, am fost atent să nu distrug legături, dar într-un proces dinamic există și faze "de schimbare" (de aia este dinamic) și poate tocmai ele deranjează, dar schimbările au "toate" așa ceva!
 * 4) nu s-a scris cu 2 feluri de diacritice, eu am cunoscut (până la PC-uri) doar virgula pentru Ș,ș,Ț,ț. Revenirea la virgule este importantă (foarte) pentru toată cultura română scrisă cu aceste semne, deci nu aprob ideea se va scrie - oficial -, cu virgule dar și cu sedile ;
 * 5) ce faceți voi concret, cei ce combateți ca neadecvată "inițiativa și acțiunea BAICAN XXX", pentru apropierea unei soluții SOFT globale a Romanian diacritics la Wp.en?
 * 6) coerență este necesară nu numai în corectarea dicriticelor unui articol ci și în căutarea, găsirea și implementarea unei soluții generale, globale; prin implicare! Numai bine, Baican.BAICAN XXX (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Permiteti-mi sa va raspund in ordinea subiectelor:


 * 1) sincer, nu vad fata de ce "ramanem in urma". Atata timp cat exista parerea ca diacriticile "noi" pun probleme tehnice pe softurile utilizate de cei mai multi cititori din afara Romaniei si din Romania, de altfel, dar sa zicem ca ei ar fi mai avizati). Sigur, mutarea en masse este una dintre solutii, dar problema nu este stringenta, si riscurile sunt mari.
 * 2) ultima oara cand problema a fost ridicata, pe pagina mea de discutii, opiniile au fost impartite, si argumentele evident contra au venit, de altfel, din partea unui roman - argumente foarte pertinente, as spune, desi nu suficiente ca sa anuleze solutia globala in sensul dorit de dvs. Pe de alta parte, cand v-au discutat actiunile in acel "War of the Romanian diacritics", utilizatorii straini s-au aratat in trei feluri: a) impotriva mutarii, pentru ca majoritatea calculatoarelor din strainatate vor afisa patratele goale in loc de caracterele cu virgula (de altfel, ele nici macar nu apar in "harta de caractere" de pe wikipedia in engleza - cineva care nu are instalata tastatura de romana nici nu poate sa le scrie!); b) interesati de mutare, intelegatori fata de problema corectitudinii academice, dar foarte impotriva mutarilor manuale de la un titlu la altul; c) (probabil cea mai absurda si mai rscanta consecinta a mutarilor de acest tip:) impotriva diacriticelor de orice fel. Exista pe wikipedia in engleza un lobby anti-diacritice, care ar transforma orice Đ in D si orice Ỹ in Y, si caruia nu faceti decat sa-i dati apa la moara la momentul asta...
 * 3) v-as putea arata eu cateva legaturi interne pe care le-ati pierdut in timpul mutarilor, si ar fi fost inevitabil sa nu existe astfel de erori.
 * 4) argumentul cu "n-am mai intalnit" ar fi relevant, daca nu ar fi cateva probleme "istorice". In primul rand, faptul ca se scria asa nu excludea, pana la decizia Academiei, ca s-ar fi putut scrie si altfel. Sigur ca virgula era "traditionala", in Romania cel putin, pentru diacriticizarea romaneasca - dar nu ca regula, ci exclusiv ca traditie. Asta inseamna ca, asa cum strainii care redau diacritice au scris, in mare, diacriticile romanesti cu tedila, si romanii insisi au redat cu virgula, la fel de "abuziv", orice diacritica straina - sa zicem, turceasca. Pur si simplu, nu a fost o preocupare, si eu unul nu am intalnit nicaieri, pana de curand, pe cineva care sa spuna "nu e voie cu tedila". Era pur si simplu voie cu amandoua, si PC-urile au ajuns, prin coincidenta data de o eroare in unicode, sa respecte aceasta ambivalenta. Cat priveste decizia Academiei, permiteti-mi sa va spun ca ea e, grosso modo, la fel ca ilogica utilizare a lui â in sintagma "Boris Elţân", la fel ca renuntarea la firescul si la fel de traditionalul î din rămîn, chiar si din romîn (asa cum scria jumatatate din cultura romana, de la Maiorescu la Sadoveanu, mult inainte de 1950). Adica o norma arbitrara, de-a dreptul idioata, profund nepractica, si conceputa la vremea ei de oameni care se plictiseau pe acasa. Eu scriu acum cu â, dar permiteti-mi sa nu vad urgenta din a forta un anume set de diacritice. De altfel wikipedia nu este sub jurisdictia Academiei, iar tedila continua si va continua sa fie folosita nestingherit de multele situri care nu vor sa-si reduca masa de cititori la acei indivizi care si-au instalat anumite softuri sau add-on-uri. Acestea includ si Academia Romana, care reuseste performanta de a scrie si cu tedila, si fara orice diacritica, alternativ pe o singura pagina (aici, de exemplu). Tinand cont de astea, putem sa scriem cu virgula sau cu tedila, atat timp cat o facem intr-un singur fel, consistent - ceea ce faceti dvs. reduce aceasta posibilitate de uniformizare, in oricare din sensuri. Confruntata cu o situatie asemanatoare privind diacriticizarea din Pinyin sau vietnameza, wikipedia in engleza a ales sa o ignore in toto: Ho Chi Minh, nu Hồ Chí Minh.
 * 5) si 6) v-am raspuns mai sus. Ceva efectiv tehnic, eu unul nu pot sa fac: nu sunt ITist. Am ridicat problema in cateva locuri, am inventariat obiectiile, am inteles ceva despre numeroasele constrangeri tehnice - iertati-ma, insa, daca nu pot (si nu vreau) sa-mi dedic toata ziua acestui aspect, mai ales atat timp cat nu vad ceva in mod necesar rau in a ramane la tedile, ba chiar vad cateva avantaje. N-o sa militez activ pentru ceva care nu este inca practic; in cel mai bun caz, o sa-i pun in tema pe cei care pot aduce solutii practice.
 * Cu respect, Dahn (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rîbniţa sub-district, Transnistria listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rîbniţa sub-district, Transnistria. Since you had some involvement with the Rîbniţa sub-district, Transnistria redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Androoox (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Links to Romanian Wikipedia
I noticed that you had added some links to articles on the Romanian Wikipedia. The links are supposed to be at Wikidata and should be added there. For example you added the link at METAR but it was already at Wikidata. On the other hand you added one to Category:Aviation meteorology but that wasn't at Wikidata so I added it there. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nicolae Bănescu


The article Nicolae Bănescu has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. KDS 4444 Talk  05:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

July 2016
Hello, I'm XXN. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Ivan Calin, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! XXN, 06:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Hello, I'm XXN. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Andrew Rayel, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! XXN, 21:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Alexandru Stoianoglo. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. XXN, 21:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Problematic move
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of FC Oţelul Galaţi
Hello BAICAN XXX,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged FC Oţelul Galaţi for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

LibraryGurl (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Grigore Nandriș
Hi, I'm Boleyn. BAICAN XXX, thanks for creating Grigore Nandriș!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Unless you add references quickly,this could end up nominated for deletion.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This has now been tagged for several issues. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Unirea ODIP


The article Unirea ODIP has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Not a notable organization."

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 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 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. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Unirea - ODIP
Hello BAICAN XXX,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Unirea - ODIP for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Meatsgains (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)