User talk:Pooua

The Wikipedia topic that occupies more of my time than any other topic right now is Jack Hyles.

Although some people find it to their advantage to leave details of their background a secret (partly so that one's opponents can't use relevant information against oneself), I will explain my association with Jack Hyles in the following paragraphs.

The late pastor Jack Hyles was a fundamental, Independent Baptist, and so was I. My family had been active in the United Methodist church until I was 5 years old. When my Dad, a Navy man, was stationed in Hawaii, our sponsors belonged to a fundamental, Independent Baptist church. So, we began attending the same church. But, I doubt that anyone in my family had heard of Jack Hyles at that time.

I don't know when my family first became aware of Jack Hyles, but I remember that when I was about 12 years old, the pastor of my church gave a book to the high school graduating class. The book was "Blue Denim and Lace," written by Jack Hyles. I remember that I did not recognize the name at the time, but my pastor spoke highly of the book. I don't recall my pastor mentioning Jack Hyles any other time. My pastor was a Bob Jones University graduate, as were roughly half his staff and faculty; the other approximate half were Maranatha graduates. There were a few miscellaneous people, such as my Mom, who graduated from University of Michigan. I paid little attention to Jack Hyles at that time, and I considered attending BJU.

When I was 17, I joined the Navy's Delayed Enlistment Program. As time drew closer for me to go active duty, I began to make plans for my move to the Great Lakes area. I was informed that one of the largest churches in the world, a fundamental, Independent Baptist church, was in the Chicago area. That was First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, pastored by Jack Hyles. I was advised to visit the church if I ever got the chance. I was pleased that fundamentalism had such a large church, and the idea of being able to visit it sounded exciting to me.

My first contact with a representative from First Baptist Church of Hammond came a few weeks after I graduated from Boot Camp. I was stationed at Great Lakes for my Class "A" school, when I was approached by some young men, who invited me to ride the bus to attend the church. They explained to me that we would leave that day, Saturday, and return late Sunday night. The bus ride is about 100 miles each direction. I made this trip every weekend I had available. I even took the opportunity, once, of visiting Hyles-Anderson Christian College, and sitting in on a few classes. After 3 months, I joined the membership of First Baptist Church. A day or two later, the Navy gave me orders to go to my new duty station in Norfolk, Virginia. So, I never attended a full church service at FBCH as a member.

When I moved to Norfolk, I did not attend any churches there for my first 6 months. My ship was in dry dock in Portsmouth. I subscribed to the tape ministry from FBCH, and listened to a sermon from Jack Hyles every week. Eventually, I met a man from my ship, who took me to his church (founded by a BJU graduate, Rod Bell, and staffed by BJU graduates), which I joined and attended for the next 3 years. However, I continued subscribing to tapes from FBCH during that time. I forwarded many of those tapes to my Mom's home, where my Mom and sister listened to them.

I spent a year in the Bible college in Virginia Beach, Tabernacle Baptist Bible Institute, then returned to my Mom's home in New Mexico. By this time, my sister had been a student at Hyles-Anderson Christian College for about a year. I had hoped that we would attend HACC together, but my van threw a rod and left me stranded in Virginia. I had only planned to attend a single year of Bible college, which I fulfilled at TBBI. I really wanted to be a scientist, but I wanted the Bible background, first. A few months before I left Virginia, missionary Tom Pace told me about LeTourneau University, a Christian engineering college in Texas.

While I was at the Bible college in Virginia, I heard rumors of scandal relating to Jack Hyles. I did not hear what all of it was supposed to be, as I was isolated from most news relating to FBCH. My sister, who was one of the student assistants to Jack Hyles, only told me that the rumors were false. Most people in my church did not talk about the matter, but there was a vague sense of disapproval from various people. One man asked me if I was concerned for my sister being around Jack Hyles. Considering the types of people my sister had been around in public high school, I could not see Jack Hyles being a threat.

Many years have passed, now. My sister met a persistent and brave (or fool-hardy) young man at the college, who managed to convince her to marry him. Now, they have 4 children, and all of them attend First Baptist Church of Hammond, and the children are entering the school run by the church.

As for myself, I visited BJU for a few days when I was 19 and in the Navy, but I never registered there as a student. After I graduated from a junior college in New Mexico, I spent about a year as a student at LeTourneau University. I became disgusted with fundamentalism after so many of them refused to listen to reason, and I vowed that I would not return to them until they repented. I have explored several denominations since then, including Mennonite (but, I am not a pacifist) and Reformed Presbyterian (but, I am not a Calvinist), but nothing has captured my interest. I was happy, once, in a fundamentalist church, before I had to break fellowship with them due to my religious views.

That last point is one that my critics don't consider; I truly am able and willing to think for myself, even if it means that I will be highly unpopular with people I love. I have done it. When I told my sister recently that I was fighting anti-Hyles people on Wikipedia and trying to write a biography for Jack Hyles, her first statement was a question, "What is it to you?" I used to argue with her about the shortcomings in Jack Hyles' ministry, about the rumors surrounding him and where I was going with my life. She was furious with me for opposing Jack Hyles in a book that I published. She knows that I probably will never visit her church or become a student at HACC, and she is angry about it. So, on Wikipedia, my opponents (particularly Arbusto) are convinced that I am a Jack Hyles shill, out to delete any negative references and paint a rosy picture of Hyles-world, even as my cynical sister wonders what I am going to do next. If I had wanted to position myself in the middle of warring factions, I could scarcely have found a better topic. And, I must admit that may be some of my motive; though I think of myself as a champion of truth and knowledge, my baser self simply craves the blood of the fight.

I have no doubt that I can write a much better biography of Jack Hyles than currently exists on Wikipedia. Most college students could. More importantly, I have the document research experience, time, money, desire and tenacity to do a decent job, better than an encyclopedia composed of odd, juvenile hacks deserves. Pooua 04:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hyles
Wikipedia discourages people with a personal attachment to articles to edit those articles. You already explained how you are personally connected and I wanted to bring this to your attention. Arbusto 23:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are not very many people who know the subject well who are not personally attached. And, if you want to make that point, then I should point out that one of the major references used on the Jack Hyles page to attack Hyles is written by a man who was personally connected with Jack Hyles decades before I was. Indeed, all of the "Controversy" reference materials on the page are statements by people with personal connections to Jack Hyles. Do you really believe that you can produce a less-biased account by reciting the POV of these sources than I could based on my familiarity, judgement and experience? I don't. Pooua 02:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The above I mentioned was referring to wikipedia editors. The difference is that man is 1) not editting wikipedia 2) he is cited by the media 3) he is not trying to have cited sources removed. Arbusto 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the man I mentioned, Robert Sumner, is not cited by the AP. His article appears in his own newspaper, which he publishes and edits. Pooua 03:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sumner is not editting this article and he is cited by the Chicago Tribune on May 28, 1989 in an article titled "Charges All Lies, Hammond Pastor Says" criticizing Hyles. Thus, his criticism comes from a good source and is part of public discourse. Arbusto 03:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You have it backwards; Sumner wrote his articles against Hyles before any of the Chicago newspapers picked up on it. And, the Jack Hyles article is linked to Sumner's own newspaper. The date he provides of his first public article on the Jack Hyles controversy is October 1, 1988. Indeed, "Sword of the LORD" published their own reply to Sumner on May 26, 1989, again beating out the Chicago Tribune article. Pooua 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read my comments carefully this is getting annoying. I wrote "he is cited by the Chicago Tribune", which means the Tribune quoted Sumner in his accusations (which is what you wrote). Allegations cited in media are used in the article. That is how it works on wikipedia. Arbusto 03:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that Sumner's comments appear in the Tribune is irrelevant to the claim that we have a good source of Sumner's comments, because we already have Sumner's statements directly from Sumner. Having the Tribune act as intermediary does not make Sumner's comments any more reliable than they were when Sumner originally produced them. That is a reason that you are inaccurate to state that other comments quoted in the newspaper are substantiated. Pooua 04:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the issue: 1) There is publicly cited cricitism of Hyles 2) It is published by reputable newspapers. Due to these criteria it is going to be included despite your personal feelings. Arbusto 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't object to some reference made to the controversies. However, they are presented on Wikipedia as if they are substantiated or factual, when, in fact, they are only hearsay. They are presented out of context as if this were legitimate history. In doing so, Wikipedia performs a disservice to her readers. Pooua 04:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * See article talk for my response. Arbusto 00:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Deceitfulness
You removed David's comments. Why did you do this? Arbusto 04:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wasn't me, at least not intentionally. Pooua 04:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wasn't you? Then why did it have your user name? Arbusto 04:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Feel free to revert them. I posted my reply to his comments, and I don't intend to remove them, either. My reply would look orphaned without his statement. So, I have no intention of removing his statement. Pooua 04:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm showing his comments are still in the article. They are just divided differently, as I replied to each point individually. Pooua 04:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay I noticed you did the same here. I recommend not taking someone's post and modifying how they wrote it. Because you take the words out of context and such. I personally request you not to modify my posts (ie leave them as is). Arbusto 04:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hyles revert
I reverted a series of edits to "Jack Hyles" because they deleted sourced information without an edit summary. -Will Beback 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you explain which items are copyright violations? Is every source that was deleted a violation? Who is the copyright holder? Please don't be mysterious. -Will Beback 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The following is a copy of my reply, originally posted to Will Beback's User Talk page


 * Thank you for your explanation, that you reverted several articles because they deleted sourced information without an edit summary. You may be unaware that the deleted sourced material in the Jack Hyles article is in violation of copyright. I have been in contact with the copyright holder to confirm this fact. I do not feel I need to take further action on this matter, because the copyright holder appears to be eager to do so.


 * Of course, the fact that the material is in violation of copyright is only a small part--though a part you won't be able to overlook--of all the problems with that article. Those "sourced items" should never have been in the article, not just because they violated copyright, but because they were sensationalized, speculative, one-sided accusations. They show shoddy research, interested only in heaping scorn on the subject without providing a true understanding of it. And, because the research was so shoddy, the article has now fallen victim to its own failures, by stealing Fox News' copyrighted material and passing it off as unattributed public domain news stories. Pooua 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Will, I provided most of the answers you ask on the Jack Hyles Discussion page. However, I will provide you with what I know of the subject.


 * The items that I have so far discovered in copyright violation (and I think they are the only ones for which the case could be made) are the external links to the articles, "Preying from the Pulpit." According to the Jack Hyles article, the source is "Detroit Michigan Eyewitness News," which tells us precisely nothing, though I did not notice that until I happened to run across the actual source recently. I spent Sunday reading through NWI Times archives on Jack Hyles, when I discovered that it was "Detroit television station WJBK-TV," a Fox News affiliate station, that produced the articles. I still did not recognize what I had found, until my opponent, Arbusto, challenged me to specify the articles my quotes were indicating. That's when I realized that he couldn't know, because the material was never properly referenced. Or, rather, he would have had to use deductive reasoning to figure it out, but I will give him a pass on that because I missed it the first first few times I looked at it.


 * The Wikipedia links to the "Preying from the Pulpit" series go to Jeri Massi's personal webpage. I have discoursed with Ms. Massi for more than a year, as she was a constant foil on the "Fightin' Fundamentalist Forum" (now since shut down). She never hesitates to heap scorn on any fundamentalist preacher who is not a Calvinist; in particular, she targets Jack Hyles, and anyone associated with Jack Hyles. But, she has gone too far, this time, in stealing that copyrighted material and publishing it on her Website without attribution.


 * I made a long distance phone call to WJBK this morning, and was put in contact with a woman named Pat. She asked me to e-mail her the details, which I did. She has thanked me for calling this matter to her attention.


 * I don't know all the material that was deleted, apart from the Jack Hyles page. The only other page that might be related to him that I have looked at so far is the new page Arbusto made for the "Preying from the Pulpit" series; no material was deleted from that page. Pooua 05:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you been removing material?
Have you been removing material as an IP? Arbusto 06:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, and I already said that in the Discussion page.


 * I have not made any changes of any kind to the article pages of any Wikipedia page for the last few weeks. I have only made submissions to Discussion pages. Pooua 06:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Arbusto 07:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Post to Teeja
The following is a copy of a post I made to Teeja's User Talk page

I have protested the article for Jack Hyles, on the grounds that the majority of the article are extracts of attacks on Jack Hyles found in newspaper reports. The seeing eye dog paragraph is too trivial for an encyclopedia article. I see that you have protested some of the same things that I have. It is clear to me that the article on Jack Hyles is an excuse to launch a hate campaign. I say that without making any attempt to defend Hyles or refute the claims. My statement is purely based on the fact that facts don't matter to the people posting the material; all that matters to them is that someone made these claims. I am very much agitated by the lack of critical thinking ability that is so common in society. This is one of Wikipedia's greatest weaknesses, and the reason there are professional editors for most encyclopedias. Pooua 18:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nixon Quotes
All of the Nixon tapes have been transcribed so if there is a quote from that tape it should reference a transcription. Additionally, I don't find it useful to quote random obscenities from candid tapes and that's a lot of what I remember I removed. If there's something there that you think is significant then, by all means, add it back, just attribute it to a source other than "Nixon Tapes" because they are so immense that's not really suitable for verifiability. --Wgfinley 12:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Hyles MP3's
I tend to think that if the mp3s are accurate recordings of the news broadcasts they claim to be, then they constitute a reliable source and the web site where they are hosted is irrelevant. Copyright problems would be between the TV station and the web site. (If I posted an article from the NY Times' subscription-only archives to a web site, it would still be a NY Times article, although they would be mighty irked.) I would take a middle view on the article itself, keeping some but not all of the Hyles-related neagative stuff; hence I doubt I would make friends with either side. Thatcher131 02:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
According to this policy, "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another." Included in this is: Arbusto 02:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rudeness
 * Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling," "snipped rambling crap")
 * Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
 * Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another
 * Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."


 * You only care about the rules when you think they work in your favor. You constantly cry and complain and point to policies in your efforts to make people do things your way. Your edits of the Jack Hyles pages are unadulterated POV--banned by Wikipedia--but you don't have the integrity to edit your statements. You are one of the reasons that Wikipedia stinks. Pooua 02:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another? There is nothing "ill-considered" about the accusations at all.  Anyone that looks at your edit history in the Jack Hyles and related articles can clearly see that you do not mind distorting the truth in order to present the man in the absolute worst light possible.  This despite the fact that not one single reliable and reputable source have ever even accused Hyles of a misdeed, let alone a crime.  Vivaldi (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

AN/I Called for Jack Hyles Article
The following is the notice begun by Arbusto on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents:

Jack Hyles and copyrights

Please visit the talk and through in your two cents. User is claiming copyright violation to get criticism removed. He does not assert to be the copyright owner nor does he have proof that it is a copyright violation. Arbusto 03:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds like mostly trolling IMHO, especially since the user claims that there's no proof that the mp3's aren't 'faithful reproductions of the original broadcast'. --InShaneee 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How could you call an MP3 copy of a TV network news broadcast that is hosted on a personal Website a reliable source? I already know the answer is, "You can't," and I know that many Wikipedia editors don't know that. However, you could contact someone with high credentials in document reliability--at least a high school English teacher--and find out the answer. Please, go ask the Dean of your local college's English Department how reliable a source those MP3s are. I would love to hear about the University that would accept such material for its own courses. Pooua 04:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand why you copy and paste certain segements relating to the articles. Seems highly selective to post certain part of certain comments relating to Hyles. Arbusto 01:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course my postings on this page are selective; this is my user talk page! Pooua 03:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Selective, as incomplete, biased, and incorrect. Arbusto 08:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You really have no room to talk, especially about the contents of my own discussion page, when the material you post on the Jack Hyles pages is dishonest, misleading, out of context, inaccurate, slanderous and often insignificant. Pooua 01:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Arbusto, or his other usernames, Arbustoo or Arbustu, or whatever his real username is now, is a rabid, anti-Hyles editor (actually anti-fundamentalist in general). Seems a Wiki admin named AzG is now taking up the cause where Arbusto left off, except his Admin powers make it very hard for anyone to disagree with him - he simply bans them once the discussion starts going against his anti-Hyles positions. Good luck, Pooua.--68.73.92.247 18:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirtland Safety Society - AGF warning
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors.

This request is made in response to your recent comment here:. BRMo 03:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Thanks For The Revert
You're welcome. There's not much that can be done for occasional vandalism to your user page, except watching and reverting; however, if there is a lot of ongoing vandalism at any one time, you have a couple of options. If it's the same IP doing the vandalising, you can warn them and then propose to have them blocked (see WP:WARN & WP:AIV). If it's coming from many different IPs, you can petition to have your page protected for a short period. See WP:PROT for the procedure. Hope this helps! ... disco spinster   talk  15:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Tripoli
It may be useful to add new material to the article, but please do not remove well-founded summaries which already exist in the article. Also, the assertion that "the founding fathers were Christians" is rather disingenuous at best, since a number of the most prominent and famous ones were actually Deists. - AnonMoos (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever, dude -- the founding fathers all believed in God in some form (even when you count Tom Paine as a founding father), but it's extremely well-known and well-established that they were most definitely NOT all pious traditionally doctrinally orthodox Christians (see Jefferson Bible, Deism) etc. etc., so that any language which implies that they were all strict Christians in the traditionally doctrinally orthodox sense would be either ignorant or dishonest. AnonMoos (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the following sentence in your version of the article is extremely unsatisfactory because it gives a very misleading overall impression (whether intended or not): "Furthermore, the fact that most of the Founding Fathers, like most of the nation at the time, were religious men after the Christian tradition is a matter of documented history; no mere article in a treaty could change that historical fact."


 * If this is merely meant to imply that they were influenced by cultural traditions of Christian societies, then it's true, but very poorly worded and not very relevant. If it was meant to imply anything specific about the religious beliefs that they held, then it's almost certainly false, and furthermore, seems to be flirting with boundaries of being actively deceptive (some might say that it goes well over that boundary).


 * It's really your obligation to make the material you add to the article conform to all necessary requirements. I'll add some discussion on other points to Talk:Treaty of Tripoli. -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to seem harsh about the edit. I only mentioned such because it is a brief summary of the other page with the U.S. involvement. The whole women and Irish thing would definitely confuse people looking for information about the Treaty. Anyway, good luck with the editing of the other page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a fat book with copies of many Barbary War documents, it was created by the U.S. Navy and has naval documents and associated documents (such as letters from State Department negotiators). For the Treaty of Tripoly it merely reprints a copy from one of the sources already used in the Wikipedia article. I didn't find the Article 11 text in other documents. Not surprisingly, I stumbled across people mentioning the obviously Christian nations, but none were in the same phrasing so that didn't help identify the origin of the Article 11 text. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Barbary War
Give me a little while to consider your points and to try and find a source for the third point, about Jefferson. Thanks. Relata refero (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, Pooua, for your diligent, patient, careful, balanced, and thoroughly encyclopedic contributions to the Treaty of Tripoli article. It is (the too few) editors like you who keep me from giving up on Wikipedia. NCdave (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Feedback reply
Posted here: Requests_for_feedback/2011_April_11. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Pooua. I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! FaktneviM (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

bad link
Hi Richard, Your "Publication" link on your User page, to your article, "Blood, The Bible And Fundamentalism: A strange doctrine of blood," no longer works. Warmest Regards, NCdave (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dave.
 * I'm sorry, I knew it wouldn't work after AOL stopped hosting user Web pages. I just didn't fix the link. I'll have to find another site that is hosting that publication (I know of two), or find a site on which to host it (I would prefer to do that). Pooua (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

National varieties of English
In a recent edit to the page Foton-M No.4, 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 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.  W.  D.   Graham  23:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Terry Burnham


A tag has been placed on Draft:Terry Burnham, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It is a draft which has not been edited in over six months. (See section G13 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JustaZBguy (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)