User talk:FenrisAureus/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hi FenrisAureus! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! ButterCashier (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia
Hi FenrisAureus! I couldn’t help but notice that your very first edit after registering your account was to create your user page with a number of user boxes which you were sure to format within the boxtop/boxbottom template. I just wanted to say that I’m quite impressed by how quickly you were able to then install RedWarn and begin patrolling recent changes for vandalism. It’s extraordinarily unusual that such a new editor catches on so quickly. Then again, I suppose the alternative isn’t very unusual at all 🙂. 4.2.114.118 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding also that I’m very impressed that you already had your signature customized at your very first talk page post! 4.2.114.118 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s interesting that you haven’t acknowledged my comment and have continued to edit, even going so far as to respond to another comment on your talk page. Excellent reporting at ANI, by the way. So, at this point I will just be blunt and put the question on your talk page, where it will remain in the history for all to see even if you try to remove it: what was your original account and what sanction do you intend to evade? I can easily think of another account which has identified as a queer/trans anarchist and incidentally hasn’t edited since the day before this account was registered, but I’m still curious to see your own explanation. 4.2.114.118 (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:DBQ, check this out buddy.-- Grapefanatic  (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also just curious, what account are you talking about? -- Grapefanatic  (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't respond to your comment because I didn't know I was being asked anything.
 * If you must know. Yes I did have an account before this. User:HenryHex. It was sparsely used. I've had it since middle school. I tried vandalizing a page ONCE 5 years ago, and haven't since. About a week ago, I created a new account intending to contribute to Wikipedia more seriously. As is permitted by WP:CLEANSTART. As you so astutely observed yes I am trans. That is the main reason why I created a new account. I did not feel like the name HENRY fit me. -  FenrisAureus ▼  ( talk ) 22:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Charles Pellegrino
Hello. I recently edited Dr. Charles Pellegrino's page. Dr. Pellegrino has been my scientific mentor for over 20 years, and I noticed a great deal of errors and selective reporting on his page. Rather than feature the large volume of professional contributions he has made throughout the span of his career, his Wikipedia page features largely slanderous content, which has proven highly damaging to such a kind and genuine man's career for the past 13 years. Much of the information presented is entirely incorrect as well, and my efforts to prove this and attempt to remove the erroneous content from his page continue to be overturned. Surely, there must be an avenue to rectify all these errors and harmful content. I see and read many objective pages of public figures on Wikipedia, but Dr. Pellegrino's is gravely different - featuring mostly negative content, presumably added by a critic or professional rival, or simply a troll. I have seen direct evidence of Dr. Pellegrino having earned his PhD for example. Victoria University at Wellington's library records department emailed his thesis, published in the peer-reviewed journal Crustaceana (and cited in other peer-reviewed research) to me directly. I have screenshots of their website where a profile for him was created in their database stating "Doctoral Degree Awarded." The page was later removed when the university no longer wished to be associated with media attention, but I have a record of the page. He was even awarded a post-doctoral. grant, which is only possible after having earned a doctorate. Sadly, Dr. Pellegrino is the victim of poor journalism and biased reporting in the media, because I assure you that he did not falsely claim to have earned a PhD, and many of his early works chronicle how he was persecuted by creationists for focusing his thesis efforts on evolution-based science. His awarded degree was placed on "Restricted Status" but was still awarded, and I have seen direct evidence of this from the university itself, because as a student, I requested his published doctoral thesis from the university records department itself, and it was explicitly digitized from print and emailed to me directly from the source itself. Regardless, Dr. Pellegrino almost never uses the title Dr. in his books at all, out of humility. A section of the page features a "review" by Michael Parfit. But this is unfortunate, because this "reviewer" was a writer who was bumped off the 1996 Titanic expedition by the expedition leader George Tulloch himself, in favor of taking Dr. Pellegrino instead, since the latter was both a writer and scientist rather than only an author. It was a highly biased review of Pellegrino's book by a bitter source and not reflective of the content at all. I understand that Dr. Pellegrino made a mistake trusting Joe Fuoco's claim that he had been involved with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But Dr. Pellegrino was a victim in this situation, of someone who had exaggerated their war record to be featured more prominently in history and an author's book. Pellegrino admitted his mistake, apologized, and corrected the error in a subsequent book release. Many first edition books can feature such errors. But Dr. Pellegrino did the honorable thing, by owning up to the mistake, admitting he had been "duped" and taking corrective action. Why would the single mistake in what has been an otherwise celebrated book be a career-defining moment for his entire body of work and page? I have attempted multiple times to add positive contributions Dr. Pellegrino has made, only to be accused of "white washing" the page in Pellegrino's favor, or posting "promotional content." How are verifiable contributions to science "promotional material" but all these highlighted low points of a person's life somehow the objective truth? Is a person's worth really only the challenges they have faced? Or their rectified errors? Dr. Robert Ballard credits Pellegrino in his international bestseller "Discovery of the Titanic" for the Downblast theory for example, and naval engineer Parks Stephenson has come out in support of the theory on his Facebook page, but Wikipedia refused to allow me to add it. Michael Crichton credits Pellegrino with inspiring his novel "Jurassic Park" in his book, but again, I could not even add this to a new section I had created called "Scientific Contributions." Nothing positive has been permissible on the page. And a lot of the negative has been refuted with evidence, but has not been removed. Whatever dedicated individual has devoted themselves to maintaining Dr. Pellegrino's page has only permitted negative content to be communicated, and at the very least, I would hope that a more well-rounded, objective overview of Dr. Pellegrino's career and contributions be posted. There is no reason to have a "controversies" section, and out of all those listed, only the Last Train from Hiroshima error is legitimate, but was also corrected... so I just do not see the purpose of this poor man suffering for such an innocent error that was addressed, in light of all the good he has done. Including having dived to the Titanic wreck, and currently working with James Cameron on Cameron's next film following Avatar, which is regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Cameron purchased rights to the book for adaptation to film). Of course, none of this has been permitted on the page... I request your assistance in revising this page and helping Dr. Pellegrino recover from the negative light he has unfairly been cast with by it please. Thank you. 2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I understand the impulse to want to see cast your friends be in the best light possible, however, Wikipedia policy is very clear on COI editing.
 * Per WP:COISELF: "If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions. Requests for updates to an article about yourself or someone with whom you have a personal connection can be made on the article's talk page by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ."
 * We welcome your contributions, but as you admittedly have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about, you most likely have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. I highly suggest that you fully familiarize yourself with our COI policy before making or suggesting any further edits to Charles Pellegrino or any related articles.
 * We ask that you:
 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
 * In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.
 * Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.
 * I will also be placing the subst:uw-coi template on your talk page for posterity to show that you have been informed of our COI policies - FenrisAureus ▼  ( talk ) 04:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

James_Cleverly
RE: Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to James Cleverly seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - FenrisAureus ▼ (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

i believe my position is neutral. there is no fact that support the accusation made is proven, an accusation is not fact. you cannot argue dismissing an opinion is npov, when an opinion itself is a pov. i am merely removing that opinion. an opinion that is clearly written to attack the person which the article describe. since you argue there is a wide diversity in opinion, why is only one opinion being promoted as if that is the definitive truth? i don't really care if you wish to revert it or not, since i have no faith in wikipedia being neutral. and when AI article become common, people with their agendas against people they hate will be able to abuse the wikipedia rules to insert even more lies into the system, this is not a fight I see worthy of fighting. "truthiness" is supreme, and the minority have to suffer the injustice, that is how it always is... but don't pretend there is any neutrality here, there isn't. 101.127.15.2 (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Per WP:YWAB:Saying that "Wikipedia is biased" or that "Wikipedia fails to follow its own neutral point of view rules" is not a set of magic words that will cause Wikipedia to accept your favorite conspiracy theory, urban myth, pseudoscience, alternative medicine or fringe theory. I'm not going to waste my time debating the merits of genocide denial. -  FenrisAureus ▼  ( talk ) 08:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Lowercase "vice presidential"
Why did you undo my application of lowercase for "vice presidential"? "Vice presidential" is not a proper noun. WikiEditor50 (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Apologies, it appears I have made a mistake. Your edit has been restored. - FenrisAureus ▼  ( talk ) 09:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Trouted
You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Onceinamoon (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC) Your edit in the 2024 pennsylvania senate primary. As the canadate has never served In a government agency and really is just a "regular citizen" that is really all that is needed and can be said for the canadate expressing his interest in running. Thus is a necessary description of the canadate. Therfore I feel his name is and should be allowed on the page for potential canadates and should be allowed to remain. And your edit was a bad call.


 * While "regular citizen" may be true it is also vague and gives no information on the candidate. For entries for candidates that have not previously served in public office i would suggest something in the format of the entry for Mehmet Oz. You will also need a source to show that the person in question is indeed considering running. - FenrisAureus ▼  ( talk ) 15:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My objection to the edit in question was not to the candidates inclusion (provided that you can give a reliable source to back up their candidacy). My objection was to the vagueness of "regular citizen". - FenrisAureus ▼  ( talk ) 15:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

2A02:C7F:988B:5100:51C4:2471:5BD:B637
Wth, I didn’t do that 2A02:C7F:988B:5100:51C4:2471:5BD:B637 (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do what? Please be specific. I am happy to address any legitimate concerns that you may have. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 06:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: I probably won’t get back to you till morning as I’m about to go to sleep (its 2am where I am) rest, assured, I will get back to you. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 06:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Moon landings
Why did you delete my editing?. There are lots of proofs that the "moon landings" was a scam. Do you realize that by continuing to say that men walked on the moon you are perpetuating and promoting a lie? 82.56.87.143 (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Per WP:FRINGE: "Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources." I reverted your edit because it cited no sources, and gave undue weight to a fringe theory widely accepted to be false. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 14:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Please be careful with unexplained content removal reversions
(Referring to your reverts on Abdul Majid Rouzi)

I see you got rollback an hour ago, so you're probably new to Huggle, in which case I understand. The edit summary is barely visible and in the corner. But please remember to read it, especially when reverting for the reason of "unexplained content removal", when both times you did so there was in fact a reason. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, apologies. —  FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 17:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Please slow down
You are mass reverting "vandalism" edits at a very fast pace right now, and some of your reverts are incorrect. I'm guessing the software is highlighting certain edits as problematic, and you're not looking at them closely enough to see if the edit is actually problematic. Just because the software highlights something doesn't mean it's an issue. If you're not sure if an edit is an issue, there are other anti-vandals out there that can look at it. The Village Pump revert was particularly problematic and not a good showing on Wikipedia's behalf. Please be more careful when reverting in the future and slow down. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I seem to be crashing headfirst into Huggle's learning curve. I keep hitting the wrong keys. Do you have any recommendations on how to keep this from happening? — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 18:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Giving yourself time and not rushing to revert is always for the best. I've never used Huggle, I always used Twinkle and ORES when looking at recent changes for vandalism. I would end up making less reverts than most anti-vandals, but I made very few mistakes. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In your preferences, set a high delay for your actions so you can cancel them with escape quickly. I recommend 5 seconds until you get the hang of it. The most important thing though, is to just not enter "reversion hypnosis" and pay attention to the edits you’re making. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think i'll just use AntiVandal. It has a simpler interface and seems harder to fuck up. I'm really sorry. —  FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 18:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks fellow traveller! — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 00:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi FenrisAureus. After reviewing your request, I have&#32;temporarily [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AFenrisAureus enabled] rollback on your account&#32;until 2023-07-02. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.


 * Thanks! — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 15:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

shego x kim possible
why did you remove my shego is a lesbian who loves kim edit 😿 Grrr meow meow (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, I reverted your edit because it appeared to be either unsourced or vandalism. I am not familiar with Kim Possible cannon, however, if you can find in universe proof (and as much as I wish it did, fanfics and or ships do not count) please do feel free to put the information back up. When discussing the sexualities of fictional characters, I would suggest something along the lines of how it is done in List of She-Ra: Princess of Power and She-Ra and the Princesses of Power characters — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 03:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Poom
Please look at the history of a page before you tag it for deletion. In the above disambig article, an IP had vandalized the page. All that needed to be done was to revert the vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oops! Thanks for your advice!—  FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 00:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Joe Pullen
Please undo your revert re Joe Pullen. You are maintaining an unreliable narrative version with incorrect, POV-ridden text and inaccurate casualty numbers.

I left a string of edit summaries, explanations and valid reflinks supporting my edits. Please review and restore after reviewing. Thanks.

166.199.7.43 (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * My objections to the edit is entirely limited to the intro section as it erases context that he was killed by a lynch mob (which he undoubtedly was). I Have restored your edit with the exception of the first intro paragraph but deleting the word bravery. is this an acceptable resolution? — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 01:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why revert everything. I understand your point but the fact is that one of the "Notes" states that the mob assembled to "capture" Pullen after Pullen killed another man. I took the word "capture" to mean turn over to the law. I am not trying to be unrealistic or whitewash anything. Please let me know what you think. Also, I don't want to be sanctioned for violating 3RR. Perhaps you could restore my last version and write the lede however you choose.
 * Yours. 166.199.7.43 (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please disregard the prior message. I somehow missed your comment "I Have restored your edit with the exception of the first intro paragraph but deleting the word bravery. is this an acceptable resolution?"
 * Yes, it is.
 * Thank you so much. 166.199.7.43 (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I admit that I was probably a bit hasty in reverting your edit. I apologize.
 * Second, to address the distinction between "lynch mob" and "posse". Contemporary reports used "posse" as lynch mobs often formed with the explicit assistance and direction of law enforcement "posse" was a euphemism to give their murder the cover of legal legitimacy, nothing more. Also, you must understand the reality of Joe Pullen's situation, he was a Black man accused of killing his White landlord in the Jim Crow South. People were lynched for far less. I personally have a hard time believing that this "posse" had any intention of taking Joe Pullen alive, and even if they did he would have been given a show trial in front of an all white jury, and then promptly hung. There is no possible version of events that sees Joe Pullen last more than a week.
 * I will also change the death count in the infobox to "3-13 (sources vary)" as when different sources give different numbers it is best to include the lower and upper range of the counts. —  FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 02:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Trouted
You have been trouted for: Reverting an article to a state that an LTA is using multiple accounts to vandalise it into - basically not paying enough attention. 2804:F14:80B3:CB01:D427:B819:5DC8:2330 (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Apologies. Going to bed now. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 09:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Error
Hello. You’ve made a mistake by reinstating a deletion from the Sydney United page. These allegations and comments are untrue and based on media propaganda and are damaging to the family club. Please remove 2001:8003:2413:8100:99A3:20F0:BC38:D594 (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Vague, unsourced claims of "fake news propaganda" do not satisfy the burden of proof needed to summarily delete well sourced content on wikipedia. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 05:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then what proof do you need? You aren’t even in the country so how can you stand by reinstating false facts. Do you have any idea about the history? 2001:8003:2413:8100:D803:6A85:6B2:B453 (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ? 2001:8003:2413:8100:3832:EF7F:BFE8:972 (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What false facts? There is video. If you want to challenge the reliability of the source you must have actual evidence that shows that the source is inaccurate and not vague unsupported assertions of "false facts." If you would like to know what counts as a reliable source on Wikipedia, I would refer you to WP:Reliable Source. Other than that, I don't see how I can help you — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 12:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Soa Palelei
Hi sir are you able to explain why the edit was reverted: I kindly request that you review the article in question and assess the evidence provided to rectify this erroneous statement on Soa Palelei's Wikipedia page. As an online encyclopedia that values accuracy and integrity, it is crucial to ensure that the information presented on notable individuals' pages reflects the truth and avoids promoting defamatory content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.24.65 (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Firstly, do not call me sir. My pronouns are she/they. You may call me "ma'am" or nothing at all.
 * Secondly, I rollbacked your edit because it deleted reliably sourced content and prematurely removed templates. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 05:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Study invitation
Hey @FenrisAureus, thanks for patrolling edits and reverting vandalism! I wonder if you are interested in our ongoing study for RC patrollers. The study aims to evaluate AI models that power recent change filters, Huggle, SWViewer, and many other anti-vandal tools. Your feedback can be really helpful! If you're interested, please check out our recruitment page for more information. Thank you for your consideration! Tzusheng (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks!— FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 12:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi FenrisAureus. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.


 * Thanks! — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 01:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Trouted
You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Agamagochar (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Please be kind enough to notify as to why and how removing wrong information constitutes vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamagochar (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You removed large sections of the article with out giving any explanation. This is not the first time you have done this either. Such large changes must be done with consensus on the talk page of the article in question. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 13:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, as per your suggestion, I have posted the reasonings in the talk page. Please let me know what is a good wait time for someone to respond, before such misguiding sections on a wiki page can be removed.
 * I would not want the removal to be undone which sufficient explanations exist and are posted. Thanks very much! Agamagochar (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest here and say that I don't really understand your arguments but they seem well thought out so I'd say that if your reasoning sits on the talk page, for more than a week with out objection it would be fine to go ahead with the removal with an edit summary like:"removed section per reasons outlined on talk page" — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 15:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Some Cookies For You!

 * Thanks fellow traveller! — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they)   ( talk ) 02:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

returning to corrie
christopher billy barlow is newborn baby of sarah and adam played jonathan jai scott 51.37.162.46 (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * That may well be true, but content on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. Please refrain from making unsourced edits or you risk being blocked from editing. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they)   ( talk ) 16:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)