User talk:MarkH21/Archive 7

Moves
Why do you move comments as in this edit ? As far as I’m aware theres no rule against there being discussion in the survey section and I’ve never seen anyone but you move stuff like that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There’s certainly no rule to how RfCs are structured; per WP:RFC, they don’t even have to be poll-based even though the majority are poll-based. I don’t remember where I first saw these split-level RfCs, but I got it from some previous example that I saw somewhere.The split-level format is purely organizational to help guide discussions and make it clearer to participants and closers who is making what arguments. The intent of the survey subsection is for editors to present their !votes and main argument, while the intent of the discussion subsection is, well, for further discussion and responses.Some RfCs can get very messy, where comments from the majority of participants may be partially obscured from long blocks of text from a small minority of vocal participants. I have found the split-level RfCs to be much easier to read and less discouraging to participation from editors stumbling upon RfCs where extensive discussion has already taken place. I’ve certainly looked at big RfCs where I wanted an overview of the positions being presented before posting a comment, but without having to sift through long comment chains.If many editors object to this organization, then I won’t push the tidying further. There’s not much of a reason for unorganized RfCs in general besides the overhead of adding subsections and keeping discussions & !votes in the subsections. — MarkH21talk 07:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I know thats the intent, but thats not an explanation for moving the edits. You can go to RsN on any given day and see admins reply to other admin’s iVotes on a split-level RfC, its standard practice. Just FYI I object to you moving my response, this isn't the first time its happened either... If I respond in the iVotes section its because I damn well meant to. I would argue that moving comments out of the context in which they were made without noting their original location in most situations changes the meaning of the comment/reply which violates Talk page guidelines and isn't covered by any of the listed exceptions as far as can tell. Again if theres a policy or guideline based reason you’re making these edits that I’m unaware of please fill me in. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, I didn’t know that you objected. I do not think that the context wasn’t distorted because the entire block was moved, the first comment clearly says who it's responding to (with the explicit reply-ping template), and the context of your comment as a response to their response is still clear since it’s nested below it. You can move the comment back if you want to.Again, there’s no policy/guideline for the organizational edits, but it's permissible by WP:TPO as just formatting/sectioning:If an editor objects on the basis of the sectioning move changing the meaning of the comments, then that’s fine and the editor can move it back. — MarkH21talk 08:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving a reply to a different section isn't formatting nor is it sectioning as the sections existed before the replies were made. The provided TPO section does not support your position here. Also as far as I can tell you’re the only one on Wikipedia doing it, do you know of anyone else? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I consider moving comments to appropriate subsections a matter of RfC formatting, but the scope "formatting" is up to interpretation and the bulleted list of TPO is only a list of examples, with a prescribed general proviso that I always try to follow: I told you, I saw it elsewhere before I started doing it. If you’re unhappy with the move then move your comment and all of the ones above it back. What else do you want? — MarkH21talk 08:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t want it to happen again (aka “Stop! There is an objection!"), if another editor does it I’l address it with them. As far as I’m aware at no point have replies or comments been banned from the iVotes section of RfCs, on what basis are you saying they’re in the inappropriate section? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Take for instance Reliable sources/Noticeboard in which almost the entirety of the discussion has taken place in the iVotes section. Replies in the iVotes section is simply how things are done, I don’t disagree that it should perhaps change in the future but we aren’t there yet. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I won’t move your comments again and I’ll ask you to move your comments yourself if I think that it should be moved.Again, TPO is a general guideline and doesn’t have to explicitly "allow" and action for it to be acceptable. The bulleted list of TPO doesn’t explicitly include, for instance, the moving of a !vote misplaced in the RfC question itself to come after the RfC statement (a move that would be unanimously accepted by the community). I format my RfCs so that there is an RfC statement, a subsection for the !votes, and a subsection for the discussion. To me, replies to a !vote constitutes discussion, particularly if it’s a block of extended replies.All RfCs are run differently: If I structure an RfC with a "Survey" section intended solely for !votes, then I will move comments as such (with a note if the context isn’t clear) and I will yield if an editor objects. It really shouldn’t be an issue if you can move it back on objection.However, if you more broadly think that an RfC should never be structured so that it contains a "Survey" section intended solely for !votes (or that such a structure should never be enacted by moving comments), then WT:TPG, WT:RFC, or WP:VPP would be good places to raise that question and/or proposal. — MarkH21talk 09:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, don’t move *anyones* comment again like you did. I object you you moving *all* of them, not just mine. So stop. Even if you made the RfC that doesnt give you WP:OWNERSHIP. I am telling you that moving the reply changes the meaning, now that you know that you can’t do it again: As TPO says "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.” (emphasis in original). It doesn't matter if you made the RfC you dont get WP:OWN over it or something. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

1) Moving comments where the context is clear doesn’t necessarily change its meaning. 2) I absolutely never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning (my emphasis).I only move comments when I think it’s an uncontroversial move. I only move comments or add indents when I think it’s a minor beneficial formatting edit. I also don’t claim ownership of any RfCs that I start. If an editor thinks that it has changed the meaning or objects for any other reason, they are free to do so. These are the same principles stated by WP:TPO that all editors are guided to strive towards in maintaining discussions, including formatting. — MarkH21talk 16:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes Hi, I am an editor who thinks it changes the meaning and I object. Please self revert. Moving a reply from the iVotes section to the discussion section is always controversial, what are you talking about? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW this is not a formatting issue, try finding a single RfC on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard page which *doesn’t* have comments/responses in the iVotes section. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I already told you several times that you can move your comment back if you wanted to. Have you just been waiting for me to do it for you?I’ve made these moves for some time now, and it hasn’t been an issue. I get that you contest time moving your comments, but it hasn’t been controversial for other editors who wrote comments that I have moved.Again, RfCs are run in a variety of ways. Just because some people don’t use !vote-only "Survey" subsection formatting for RfCs that they start doesn’t mean that no RfCs can be formatted in that way. — MarkH21talk 17:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Self reverting is generally how this is done, as it will be if anyone else objects. Can you show me an example of a !vote-only section in an RfC? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see now that has responded in the contiguous chain of comments that I moved from "Survey" to "Discussion", so moving the reply-chain back changes the context of their comment and requires their consent in your interpretation. Is it so controversial for the discussion to be under "Discussion"? — MarkH21talk 17:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are replies and comments in the !vote section controversial in any way? I’m not the one arguing for a state of wikipedia other than the norm, if you want the big changes you’re proposing theres gonna need to be some more support. I note that before you have moved single replies which made no reference to who they were replying to and you made no note of that in the description of your move rendering the replies contextless orphans almost entirely devoid of meaning. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you exclude RfCs not started by me (because there have been several with a !vote-only subsection), recent and very centralized ones include Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 11 (minus the blocked sock).There also appears to have been a recent lengthy discussion at Talk:Simvastatin between, , , , and about the !vote-only subsections. It didn’t seem to come to a consensus, with some advocating for and against. Like other RfC formats, it’s sometimes used and there’s no specific consensus on its usage outside of the general consensus that RfCs can have varying formats. — MarkH21talk 17:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The first one has four total participants... The second one literally has replies in the survey section. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The second one only has replies in the survey section from the blocked sock and the original !voter. But regardless, multiple participants at Talk:Simvastatin clearly indicated that !vote-only subsections are a somewhat common format, e.g. If you don’t believe those editors or me and need several examples to show that this isn’t a format I just made up, I don’t know when I’ll have time to waste on trawling through RfC lists for the sole purpose of linking examples. — MarkH21talk 17:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not denying the style exists, I’m denying that anyone has a right to move replies which don’t conform to the style. I see no indication that Doc James’s position was supported by consensus. Until it is please don’t do it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you don’t deny the existence of this RfC format now, because I also only just noticed that it been an explicitly listed RfC formatting example since when longtime admin  added it.You say that editor's cannot move comments in specifically-formatted discussions is the status quo. The guidelines say that editors can make minor formatting moves, but should yield if challenged on a particular edit. That doesn’t mean that there is a blanket ban against moving comments to follow discussion formats. For matters on editor conduct, it’s not "blanket-ban-on-behavior-until-there-is-consensus-for-the-behavior". The status quo is that there is no rule against making uncontroversial moves of comment given that the move is allowed to be undone if it is contested, and the status quo is that editors make such comment moves across all kinds of centralized discussions.Going forward: I won’t touch your comments, I'll only move comments if it doesn’t change the meaning, and I’ll leave more post-move notes if the context of a moved comment isn’t clear than I already do. But again, there is no policy/guideline/consensus against formatting comments in specifically-formatted discussions if you commit to preserving meaning and context while allowing editors to revert challenged particular edits as suggested by WP:TPO.If you have further qualms about this general WP:TPG question, I’d really suggest going to WP:VPP or WT:TPG. — MarkH21talk 18:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Mark, at this point, I recommend that you stop moving this editor's comments. If you want your preferred formatting "enforced" over the objections of an RFC participant, then I recommend that you ask someone else to do it.  Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment is a good place to ask for such help.
 * Horse Eye Jack, if an editor genuinely believes that an edit would make the page worse, then he shouldn't be making it. Therefore I don't think that we should insist that Mark self-revert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait I think you misunderstand. I've always said that any participant who objects can undo my move of their comments. I do not want [my] preferred formatting "enforced" over the objections of an RFC participant. What HEJ is asking is that I never move anyone's comments at any RfC ever again. — MarkH21talk 23:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Mark's strategy is good, as I understand it: move a comment from the survey section if you can do it without damaging it with the context change. If someone moves it back, let it be.  If you know in advance an editor feels strongly about comments in the survey section, don't move that editor's comment.
 * Many editors, after commenting in the survey section, will see that someone else prefers the comment elsewhere and think, "Well, if matters to you, go ahead". Only some will react with, "How dare you question my formatting".
 * Mark is far from alone in believing comments don't belong in the survey section. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
Please correct the spelling please, I looked up Porter Stansberry and noticed that you’d spelled his “best friend/victim/unknown” their name Ray. It’s Rey. Tiny detail. But respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.0.213 (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you have the wrong editor? My only edit to Porter Stansberry was to remove a malformed link without changing any text. — MarkH21talk 07:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Demchok sector. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

Aren't we grown up enough to stop edit-warring now? Kautilya3 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My second revert, unrelated to my first (which was because your edit summary literally didn’t mention half of what you undid), was because you directly and explicitly contradicted the source, whereas you are mass-reverting changes solely for the status quo and because you thought that a proposal by another editor was a unilateral change by me. Hmm? — MarkH21talk 13:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Demchok, Ladakh


The article Demchok, Ladakh has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Duplicates an existing page Demchok."

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. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

there needs to be a new page for new Turks & Caicos Regiment created.
hey there

there needs to be a new page for new Turks & Caicos Regiment similar to the relatively new page of Cayman Regiment.

its been a hot minute and I don't really remember how to request for a page to be created under military. Anyway more information is out and the new Regiment is making headway and much like the Cayman Regiment should have its own page. If there is someway we can get that request in and page created that would be great.

Scottish Caymanian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottish Caymanian (talk • contribs) 10:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ll take a look and create an article if I have time. Thanks for the heads up! — MarkH21talk 06:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey sound good. I look forwards to seeing that article. Will help to add any additional information if required. lastly your welcome for the heads up. — Scottish Caymanian21talk 12:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey any update on the Turks and Caicos Regiment article?. Looking forwards to seeing that article. IWill help to add any additional information if needed. — Scottish Caymanian21talk 23:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I’ve been a bit busy lately! I can probably do it sometime over the next week or two though. You can also start the article at Turks and Caicos Regiment before then if you’d like. — MarkH21talk 03:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've created Turks and Caicos Regiment. Please do add both content and sources to it! There are some statements already there that need to be properly sourced. Thanks! — MarkH21talk 07:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey very good job Turks and Caicos Regiment article. Looking forwards to seeing this article grow as more is released. I Will help to add any additional information as it develops. — Scottish Caymanian21talk 15:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Jul 2020 ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- You were indirectly mentioned. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 18:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ladakh Chronicles
Hello! Your submission of Ladakh Chronicles at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CMD (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide a QPQ soon so that this can be passed. Best, CMD (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I've been a bit distracted. I'll get on that ASAP. — MarkH21talk 15:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK Holding area
Hi MArk. Thank you for reviewing 2020 FA Cup Final. I moved it to the holding area but apparently there's some new unwritten rule saying I'm not allowed move it so could I ask if you could move the nomination to the 1 August holding area at Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved please?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 06:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve never moved the DYKs that I have approved, usually leaving it to be moved the appropriate areas (e.g. prep) by the various DYK volunteers. Isn’t the move to Template talk:Did you know/Approved usually done by bot? — MarkH21talk 18:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And this is exactly why this so-called rule is a stupid idea for just this reason, it forces an unnecessary burden on reviewers. But the way it's done to the holding area is you need to move it from the approved area and put it at the bottom under the 1 August header (Which you'd need to create).  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ . I can see the purpose of the rule, but I agree that it’s a bit overly bureaucratic. — MarkH21talk 23:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Rat Meat
The article on Rat meat consumption in the US erroneously states that WVian people currently eat rat meat stew. The source that is based on does not state that. The source states that it was eaten in the past. This is why I changed it to past tense. Because it happened in the past. That’s how the past tense works. Cloakjingles (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the two sources says That’s definitely about the modern era. The other source says: That says the origin was the collapse of the mining industry, not that it was only eaten then. — MarkH21talk 21:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

If that dish is prepared at all, it is prepared as an occasional novelty dish. The wiki article, as worded, implies that rat meat is eaten by all West Virginians, which it is not. WV is not one just homogeneous culture. No american population regularly consumes rat meat. Think about rewording that. Cloakjingles (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realized that and had reworded it to say is a local specialty from West Virginia instead of is consumed in American cuisine in the state of West Virginia. — MarkH21talk 20:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Unrealiable source
Could you tell me why it is unrealiable? So I can find better sources FornesNF (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, I thought that you re-added this article that pointed out  as not being as reliable as academic peer-reviewed sources (like the ones used for the Qing figure: journal article, journal article). The Qing source that you did add in, The Historical Atlas of China, is fairly reliable (at least for cartographic and administrative aspects) and has been academically reviewed. Given that it would then be a range, I wouldn't assign a definitive rank to either entry, instead writing 4–5 in the rankings for both. — MarkH21talk 15:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I have tried to amend the errors of my previous editions. Check them if there is still something invalid, you can delete them if you see something that is not allowed.

So would you recommend me to use that source about the Chinese extension in the list of empires?

a greeting FornesNF (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Ladakh Chronicles
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Dodgy quoting
Hi, MOS:QUOTEMARKS says that we should use the simply " and ' characters but this edit, even after your later fixes to it, is using those weird slanted alternatives we see from time to time. I have the feeling that this is more than just a style issue and that it actually affects screenreaders etc so please could you bear it in mind for the future. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That happens when you copy from various online sources, since the sources themselves use smart quotes and smart apostrophes. I didn't catch it within the  parameter, so thanks for pointing that out. — MarkH21talk 15:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I have said elsewhere, I am not a newbie. I know how it happens but you're supposed to fix it. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Redlinks
Re: this edit the version here had a red link so it indicated to me that the relevant article didn't exist.

I'll redirect the red link to the more specific link. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I only looked at your diff so I didn’t even realize that the old version didn’t point at what I just changed it to. Interestingly enough, Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests has multiple incoming links. Thanks for creating the redirect! — MarkH21talk 03:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! WhisperToMe (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible DR?
Per my comments here, I am considering submitting this for a deletion review. (Basically, I feel that the closure was a supervote, in that the closer raised an argument not supported by the discussion.) Do you have any thoughts about that (that I should or shouldn't, or otherwise)? Thanks, JBL (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a DR is plausible, as your !vote clearly addresses the de wiki claim which was made by only a single keep !voter. Given that de wiki sources was only briefly mentioned by a single !keep vote and refuted by your !vote, I don't think that The sources from German Wikipedia may indicate notability, but there has been insufficient discussion in this AfD to decide for certain was sufficient to justify "No consensus".So I would support a DR, but it's not the end of the world if you don’t decide to open one :) — MarkH21talk 16:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks -- I'll give it a go. --JBL (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Cayman Islands
Hi I added the references you requested in the Cayman Islands, later I will review the other article which is longer.--Warairarepano&#38;Guaicaipuro (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Turks and Caicos Regiment
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"MacCullagh ellipsoid and Galois axis" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MacCullagh ellipsoid and Galois axis. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 12 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Salix alba (talk): 19:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Cultural genocide of Uyghurs move close
We will need to open a move review on this one. The closer cited: Since this RM began at the end of June, there have been numerous shifts in the situation in Xinjiang. Consequently, that has caused the opinions and !votes of editors involved in this RM to shift as well, with some editors previously opposing a move revising their !vote and rationale accordingly.

Which is dead wrong, objectively. 1) The sterilization allegations only broke in late June with Zenz's reporting, and are based on far older data; 2) I can only count as having "shifted" their "opinions and !votes", or even striking out any portion of their previous remarks. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that technically the situation in Xinjiang itself has not changed since June and that only one !vote was revised. However, the global reporting has shifted in terminology (albeit only slightly) since June and there does seem to have been rough consensus in the move discussion for the execution of the proposed move. So perhaps should slightly revise the closing statement regarding the accuracy of those two points, but it doesn’t seem to me that the actual move needs to be reversed. In either case, asking the closer to revise their close should be the first course of action. — MarkH21talk 02:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also advise that, per WP:MR, the first step states that Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. Had you simply reached out to me, I probably would've said the same thing that I'm saying now: I'm more than happy to revise my statement, and I apologize for the mixup. I still see a rough consensus for the move in either case, but I worded the rationale for it rather poorly. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that what prompted me to say Consequently, that has caused the opinions and !votes of editors involved in this RM to shift as well, with some editors previously opposing a move revising their !vote and rationale accordingly. was not just 's !vote, but also returning to the RM to switch from opposing to supporting the RM, even though they didn't strike out their initial comments. OhKayeSierra (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Hello, I'm HaeB. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hong Kong Free Press, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. HaeB (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Specifically, I'm talking about this edit - do not make it appear like a cited reference supports information that it does not. (Philip Cross has already since corrected the error.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was only moving content from the article body to/from the lead; that change in particular was already cited in exactly the same manner in the "History" section . In this case, the original content was poorly cited when it was inserted by  so this was a good catch by . — MarkH21talk 12:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey, nice work on resolving that. Thanks for collaborating! Skyerise (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)