User talk:SierraTangoCharlie1

June 2021
Hey TyseanS99 (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Could someone help me add myself on the “Jean-Joseph” Wikipedia page ? TyseanS99 (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * sorry but you can't add yourself. It is prohibited on Wikipedia to create content about your own self. If you are a notable person complying with WP:BLPCAT and WP:LISTPEOPLE then I suggest you ask an editor on the Teahouse to help you out. Also references about your work in reliable sources(WP:CITE, WP:RS) would help them decide. All the best. STC1 (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Just got your message thanks for the heads up TyseanS99 (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of Service. You can read more about the Notability criteria here : WP:GNG. STC1 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cosmetic edits
Hey there, I saw that you made a cosmetic edit at 1. In the future, per COSMETICBOT, these types of edits, which should be avoided. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicPupper (talk • contribs)

Hello, I believe that edit was made using WP:AED. If it's to be avoided, I don't understand why it's even allowed to be installed in the first place. Anyways, since I am responsible for edits made using a Wikipedia user script, I'll not use AutoEd again. Thank you for the heads up. STC1 (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank U.🤗 -- STC1 (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Your help desk question
You did not get a response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2021_May_18#Reliable_Source?? this question]. Did you find the answer elsewhere?

I would say the school's web site is probably good enough but it always better to find an independent source. Others might disagree with me.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * hi, thanks for getting in touch, No. I didn't get any reply. I didn't find the answer elsewhere, I just let it go, as I felt that since it went unanswered, there really wasn't a yes/no answer to it. In my thinking, the only reliable source for an alumni would be the website of the institution itself. But I could be wrong. --STC1 (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ideally, if the person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, there would be some kind of press coverage mentioning it.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * agreed, but then that is not always the case. Some notable people just never get their alumni status mentioned in Reliable sources, other than the institution website itself. It is here that the conundrum occurs..😣 --STC1 (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'd say you're okay, but others might disagree.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  13:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * : yup, maybe I'll wait till someone on the Helpdesk decides to clarify the situation. In the meanwhile I'll keep in mind to find a source other than the institution. --STC1 (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Hi, SierraTangoCharlie- you erased an edit I made within about 5 minutes of my edit, which did not give me enough time to properly cite the Rigveda. Further, you deleted my edit for lacking a reliable source- wheres I cited chapter and verse in the Rigveda. Do you require more detailed citation to the RigVeda?

I am simply trying to stop the racist, rightwing, political nonsense that is keeping the Dasa wiki page from including any reference to black skin. The Rigveda 3 times plainly states that the Dasa have black skin. But any mention of this gets quickly deleted.

Could you help me make this citation properly?
 * I believe you have written to me wrt: this edit. this is your 1st edit - where you have not mentioned any source. just the word 'black' then you made this edit which again went uncited. All you did was add: Please note that you should upload the citations before making the edit go live. Failing which it is natural to categorise the edits to be uncited. For further info on citation refer WP:CITE and WP:RS. Please also learn how to properly leave messages on Talk Pages - to avoid vandalising other user's Talk Pages and always end your message with four tildes WP:TALK  -- STC1 (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

AIV vs ANI/SPI
Hi, to report sockpuppetry, you may like to try Twinkle's "TW -> ARV -> Sockpuppeteer" function on a sockpuppeteer's talk page. Or, if sockpuppetry is not the main issue: For detailed reports requiring longer explanations, please use WP:ANI. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello,, thank you for the quick reply/advice, I am not sure if it is indeed WP:SOCK or just multiple accounts doing the vandalism and hence I am apprehensive of reporting it via Twinkle's "TW -> ARV -> Sockpuppeteer" function. Should I go ahead with the Sock Reporting? -- STC1 (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. As it's the same domain all the time, MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist may be the best approach. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - OK. this is a good idea. Thank You. I found another IP doing the same thing. -> [here] -- STC1 (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The address range is huge. I have blocked the /40 for a month now, but that was only possible because other, unrelated contributions have been of such low encyclopedic quality that collaterally preventing them won't be a loss. If they return with a different domain name, please report it at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist; blocking will only have an effect if done quickly enough during such a spam session. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . Roger, Copied that. I have been monitoring "eprretail" links since I first encountered them. I will keep an eye on the vandals via watchlist. Thank You, Sincerely -- STC1 (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

help
please if see first revert full club list and ban user you already warned, about indian soccer.

Hi, I don't understand what you are trying to say. STC1 (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

feyli lurs
hi please edit and do correct feyli article books and sources say deyli are lur never said kurd we have a lot feyli lurs in iraq and iran they also known lur and they say we are lur and in history we had feyli lurs never feyli kurds please edit and do the corect i wanna also say to other writers in wiki to correct this article درستزاد (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

hello, please tell me what Wikipedia article are you talking about, without any reference I'm at a loss to understand what you are asking of me. STC1  talk  22:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC) مرحبًا ، من فضلك قل لي ما هي مقالة ويكيبيديا التي تتحدث عنها ، دون أي إشارة ، أنا في حيرة من فهم ما تطلبه مني STC1  talk  22:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

According to all these credible sources, the feylis have been and will be part of the Kurds:   Ahrir (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

hello, You seem to have posted quite a few references on this talk page of mine, but unfortunately I still don't know what you guys are talking about. The first guy - he never gave any indication of what Wikipedia article he is referring to and neither did you. In such a situation I have anyways chosen to ignore this topic as it's non productive in nature. Thank you -- STC1  talk  12:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I showed this person who called the Feyli Lors with a reliable source that they are Kurds. I refrain from continuing this discussion, with many thanks, and I also apologize if I did something wrong. Ahrir (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The topic is about the article Feyli (tribe), it would have been better if the user:درستزاد had discussed the article, so now anyway, good luck. Ahrir (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ahh. Ok. See now I know what we are even talking about. Thanks for the heads up. Anyways, these discussions merit a place on the talk page of the article itself. So I would suggest you to post these same references on the talk page of the Feyli(tribe) for future readers to easily access. Thanks STC1  talk  13:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit on Frances Cress Welsing page
On |your edit you removed removed material as uncited despite it being cited the article at the end of the sentence, the previous edit was restoring standing cited material that was falsely removed and fixing formatting 2001:8003:38C0:900:F8F9:4CCC:F97F:24EB (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - Hi, with all due respect, the article does not say that HOWARD denied tenure due to her being Racist \ homophobic. The article says that SHE FELT that she was denied tenure because of her theories. This is inconclusive evidence to claim the same as being the true reason behind denial of tenure by Howard. Plus there is no mention of homophobia playing a part in said denial. Hope that sorts out the issue. Have a Good Day -- STC1  talk  22:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Warning
Hello, I'm 81.129.219.203. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. — Preceding undated comment added 08:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh my!! Please inform me which edit you are referring to. If this is a test from your end, kindly use the sandbox. As it stands I have no idea what you are talking about. Brgds. - STC1  talk  16:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.45.129 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * - If you care to read the Edit History - an áppropriate edit summary has been posted. Thank You.-- STC1  talk  21:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * In case anybody comes up on this in talk page history or archives: the IP was blocked for disruption and overall trolling. @STC: you should feel free to simply remove and disregard the warning, it's obvious enough trolling. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 🤗🤗 . Ok, will do. I was not sure. STC1  talk  09:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Anime watcher
Hey! I noticed you thanked me for some edits I made and I saw that your userpage showed that you're a fan of Anime. So I have to ask, what are your thoughts on the Pokemon Anime (if you've seen it)? ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#6545 19:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * - Hi. Yes I enjoy watching anime, but I love reading manga. I used to watch Pokémon. I think I watched up till johto league. In movies I've only watched Pokémon The First Movie. Currently I'm reading the Korean Manhwa Solo Levelling. I've read the light novel in the past and now reading the Manhwa is a totally new experience. <span style="background-color:	#FFFF9F;color:blue">STC1   <sub style="color:red">talk  21:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Neat! I honestly prefer watching the later gens as I think they were written better than the earlier gens. Also in response to removing the above false warnings, it's perfectly fine to remove ANY message from your talk page, but removing a message usually shows that you acknowledged the message. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q">Blaze The Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#6545 23:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * .. I used to watch Pokémon on cartoon network. My tryst with Anime began with Ninja Senshi Tobikage. After Johto league I got busy with higher studies and then work. Later I stumbled upon ANIMAX and then I was hooked onto InuYasha, Flame of Recca, Bleach, Yu Yu Hakusho, Fairytail, Naruto, before I started reading mangas, because I just couldn't wait for the Anime episodes to be broadcasted. <span style="background-color:	#FFFF9F;color:blue">STC1  <sub style="color:red">talk  16:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

"disruptive editing"
what is disruptive about removing unencyclopedic content?

The person reverting is engaging in "disruptive" editing by continually re-adding unencyclopedic content — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BE60:2B60:0:0:0:3E (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

--HI--,   THIS should answer all your questions. Also quoting a published Research Journal is Very Encyclopaedic. On the other hand Deleting a reference to a Published journal (because you don't agree with it) is Called Vandalism. <span style="background-color:	#FFFF9F;color:blue">STC1  <sub style="color:red">talk  01:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Guardian angel
The bible verses quoted in those 2 paragraphs do not say anything about the angels being guardian angels. And there are no other sources to support the interpretation that they are. Anyone can interpret bible verses, but that doesn't mean the interpretation is correct or supported by reliable sources. Skyerise (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing to support the assertion that the specific angels mention in the bible were guardian angels. Not all angels are guardian angels and we don't interpret scripture in Wikipedia's voice. Skyerise (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Basically, if something is cited only to the Bible, it is unsourced interpretation and speculation. If you want to return the material to the article, provide reliable sources that indicate that the idea that the mentioned angels are generally considered by scholars to be guardian angels in those particular verses. Skyerise (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "Basically, if something is cited only to the Bible, it is unsourced interpretation and speculation" -- I ask you this : what is the name of the section in which the contentious info being debated was present in ??
 * yup, the new testament - which is the bible .. the section heading refers to data from the bible. SO how do you consider this data alone to be speculation? and not the entire article? <span style="background-color:	#FFFF9F;color:blue">STC1  <sub style="color:red">talk  17:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Because it had no non-biblical supporting sources. Which the first paragraph does (a link to a commentary). The editor who first removed the information used the edit summary "deleted misinformation". You restored it. I looked at it and determined that because there were not third-party sources, it could not be determined whether those two paragraphs are misinformation, so I removed them again. Find something to support that commentators consider those particular angels to be "guardian angels". And yes, there are probably other paragraphs that should be cited or removed, but the IP editor brought that one to our attention. It could very well be misinformation. Now, your edit comment was misleading, you claimed no reason had been given, but it had been. Skyerise (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * it is very simple - if you look at it logically :
 * definition of guardian angel :
 * 1. collin's dictionary : A guardian angel is a spirit who is believed to protect and guide a particular person.
 * 2. cambridge dictionary: a spirit who is believed to protect and help a particular person.
 * 3. oxford: a spirit that some people believe protects and guides them, especially when they are in danger.
 * 4. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: good spirit who is believed to protect a person or place.
 * in the passages mentioned :
 * did the angel "protect" peter ? YES
 * did the angel "Guide" peter (to where he needed to be?) YES
 * was peter in danger ? YES
 * does the role of the Angel in Peter's Liberation fulfill the definition of Guardian Angels?
 * I would say thats a YES. <span style="background-color:	#FFFF9F;color:blue">STC1  <sub style="color:red">talk  18:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's called original research. A reliable source has to state the connection. We have a very clear policy that interpretations of religious texts requires citation to a commentary or other reliable source. God can send any angel to perform functions. That doesn't automatically make the angel a "guardian angel", which is a more complex topic than "an angel who performs a guarding function". The angel actually has to be assigned for a lifetime to an individual person, people, or country. That has to be their primary job. And a reliable source has to say that for the particular angel or instance. Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to make these kinds of deductions. Your reasoning above is also erroneous. It makes a logical fallacy that any angel is a guardian angel just because they guarded something or someone on a single occasion. Skyerise (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * These verses are generally considered to be in regards to Guardian Angels, and since they DONOT EXPLICITLY use the word guardian Angel, nor do they mention that the angel is assigned for LIFE - they are nonsense?
 * in the article itself - there is mention of guardian angel (Daniel) - but again the verses do no explicitly say "guardian Angel" - so that section in the article must also be deleted.
 * wrt the Roman Catholic section : the section reads that The first Christian theologian to outline a specific scheme for guardian angels was Honorius of Autun in the 12th century.
 * the same theologist opined that every individual was born with a guardian angel.
 * in the article references are made to revelation - but if u read the references - it does not mention Guardian Angels. it just says Angel of so and so place. could well be a messenger or administrative angel. - That Section too must be deleted (as per your argument)
 * Most of the Judaism and hebrew bible sections - make references to angels guarding / helping a believer - but not to the Angel being ASSIGNED to that believer.
 * SO THAT SECTION MUST BE DELETED AS WELL.
 * The Judaism section makes several references to guardian angels, again not quoting the TORAH or Bible - but Raabis and their teachings from about the 15th century. - Ofcourse that cannot be cannon, now can it? SO DO WE DELETE IT ?
 * The judaism section makes reference to Angels protecting mother and new born babies. -- definitely not bonded to the concerned souls for life -- so by your own definition - THIS SECTION TOO MUST BE DELETED.
 * wrt to the Lutheran section : -- does this verse in any way indicate that the angel guarding the person is for a day / a month / a year or life??
 * NOPE - so again - not a guardian angel for life (as you have opined) - SO WE DELETE THIS SECTION ALSO !!
 * the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches section:
 * uses the same verse about peter and his guardian angel, which you say is ORIGINAL RESEARCH --- KINDLY DELETE THAT TOO.
 * THE ENTIRE article MUST be thinned down to only those beliefs which EXPLICITLY say GUARDIAN ANGELS FOR LIFE -- example: Zoroastrianism, Islam and renaissance magic.
 * Hoping you can curate this article to only those references which explicitly state GUARDIAN ANGEL FOR LIFE !!
 * <span style="background-color:	#FFFF9F;color:blue">STC1  <sub style="color:red">talk  17:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't work to order. Yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that doesn't obligate me to fix it myself. Much of the other material you mention has reliable sourcing, the Zoroastrian texts are specifically about guardian angels, for example. Sure, it needs a third-party source, but we aren't taking a text that just says "angel" and projecting onto it without support that the angel is a guardian angel. And yes, many articles in the area of religion break the rule about sourcing to commentaries, etc. No one person has time to go around cleaning that up. That's what maintenance tags are for. Next time the article comes up at the top of my watchlist, I might fix another instance. Instead of lecturing me, you could instead search for sources for what you think should be included rather than removed. Skyerise (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Never said Zorasthrian Arda Fravas was to be removed. you might have just assumed that.
 * 2. No lecture. what I did was point out the numerous instances of ORIGINAL RESEARCH in the article, which sadly were overlooked.
 * 3. What I also did was point out the hypocrisy of deleting one aspect of the article, while holding on to another section which uses the exact same data and sources.
 * 4. No obligations whatsoever, you are after all a volunteer, what you choose to overlook is totally your choice.
 * 5. The last sentence was a hope, a suggestion, a plea, that amongst the various topics you have listed as having worked on, you might be able to find the miniscule amount of time required to 'edit' this article as well, seeing that it is ripe with ORIGINAL RESEARCH and musings of theologians, which are not actually found in the original texts.
 * <span style="background-color:	#FFFF9F;color:blue">STC1  <sub style="color:red">talk  04:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So stop wasting your time blathering and WP:JUSTFIXIT. Skyerise (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source that says that the angel in that verse was specifically "Peter's guardian angel" then it would be fine. But the first example in the same paragraph implies Jesus had a guardian angel. But Christ is God according to Christian theology, and God created the angels. Why would God need an angel to guard himself? Pretty sure that is misinformation, as the IP editor recognized. That little claim made me take the IPs concern seriously. Skyerise (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hoping you can curate this article to only those references which explicitly state GUARDIAN ANGEL FOR LIFE !!
 * <span style="background-color:	#FFFF9F;color:blue">STC1  <sub style="color:red">talk  17:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't work to order. Yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that doesn't obligate me to fix it myself. Much of the other material you mention has reliable sourcing, the Zoroastrian texts are specifically about guardian angels, for example. Sure, it needs a third-party source, but we aren't taking a text that just says "angel" and projecting onto it without support that the angel is a guardian angel. And yes, many articles in the area of religion break the rule about sourcing to commentaries, etc. No one person has time to go around cleaning that up. That's what maintenance tags are for. Next time the article comes up at the top of my watchlist, I might fix another instance. Instead of lecturing me, you could instead search for sources for what you think should be included rather than removed. Skyerise (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Never said Zorasthrian Arda Fravas was to be removed. you might have just assumed that.
 * 2. No lecture. what I did was point out the numerous instances of ORIGINAL RESEARCH in the article, which sadly were overlooked.
 * 3. What I also did was point out the hypocrisy of deleting one aspect of the article, while holding on to another section which uses the exact same data and sources.
 * 4. No obligations whatsoever, you are after all a volunteer, what you choose to overlook is totally your choice.
 * 5. The last sentence was a hope, a suggestion, a plea, that amongst the various topics you have listed as having worked on, you might be able to find the miniscule amount of time required to 'edit' this article as well, seeing that it is ripe with ORIGINAL RESEARCH and musings of theologians, which are not actually found in the original texts.
 * <span style="background-color:	#FFFF9F;color:blue">STC1  <sub style="color:red">talk  04:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So stop wasting your time blathering and WP:JUSTFIXIT. Skyerise (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source that says that the angel in that verse was specifically "Peter's guardian angel" then it would be fine. But the first example in the same paragraph implies Jesus had a guardian angel. But Christ is God according to Christian theology, and God created the angels. Why would God need an angel to guard himself? Pretty sure that is misinformation, as the IP editor recognized. That little claim made me take the IPs concern seriously. Skyerise (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
<section begin="announcement-content" />
 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)