User talk:ZeroAlpha87

Welcome!
  Hello, ZeroAlpha87!  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Getting Started

Tutorial Learn everything you need to know to get started. Introduction to contributing • Editing

• Referencing

• Images

• Tables

• Policies and guidelines

• Talk pages

• Navigating

• Manual of Style

The Teahouse Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips 
 * Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
 * It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
 * If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
 * Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
 * When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
 * If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
 * Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, S0091 (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Tip
Hi ZeroAlpha87, I noticed you "undid" (reverted) several of your edits at Order of the Garter using the undo function. An easier way to to revert a series of edits is to pull up the last "good" version from History. Click on the time/date stamp in History which will pull up that version, there will be a box at top with a link [restore this version], just click that and it will revert all edits that occurred afterward in one click/one edit. If you ever have questions or need help, you can ask at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Please note that Wikipedia is a work in progress. It may take years for articles to be created, but, as you have discovered, redlinks are acceptable for articles that should be created at some point in the future. This means that when the article is created, the links are already in place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I provided an explanation in my edit summaries: MOS:HONORIFIC. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Refer to the sections within the Manual of Style that I have contravened, please. I am happy to conform to a house style (so long as it is not wrong, no matter how long established), but, in those particular articles, I believe it is necessary to differentiate between how recipients were styled when the orders were conferred and how they went on to be styled.  For example, in the article titled 'Royal Family Order of Edward VII', which I have not edited, it *does* give the recipients' styles at the time of their becoming members; why is it different for the other articles?  I look forward to hearing from you. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've told you already, several times. We don't use honorific prefixes on wikipedia. The style I'm reverting to is the same style at Royal Family Order of Edward VII. "Queen Alexandra" is no different from "Queen Alexandra" and claiming they are different is absurd. DrKay (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, especially regarding Queen Alexandra? The issue is not whether 'we' use honorific prefixes on Wikipedia; I said that I am happy to conform to this, and could easily remove all the 'HM's and 'HRH's.  However, I object to your changing back articles to having some people listed with their titles/styles as they are now, or later became, and others listed with their titles/styles as they were at the time the orders were presented to them.  For example, Princess Margaret became The Countess of Snowdon in 1961, and Princess Alexandra became The Hon Lady Ogilvy in 1988; the article on Edward VII's order appears to consider this point.  This inconsistent approach is, unfortunately, what I have come to expect, not helped by a rigid approach to maintaining style, regardless of how arguably ill-conceived it is, at the expense of sense. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Queen Alexandra is called Queen Alexandra at the Edward VII article. DrKay (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes: another example of the inconsistency that I keep raising! Note what is below her name in that article: 'The Princess of Wales later Queen Mary', for example.  I should argue that 'Queen Alexandra' should, therefore, be 'The Queen later Queen Alexandra'; the only reason that I have not changed it to this is that I did only the articles on Elizabeth II, George VI and George V in the time that I had available earlier today. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just call her Queen Alexandra at all the articles. DrKay (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @DrKay, I do not understand your approach to this at all; there appears to be no logic to it, from my perspective. I, therefore, recommend no further communication on the issue - here or anywhere. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed your WP:AE report
I've removed the report you filed at AE as it was malformed and did not seem to be related to any arbitration decision. If you have any questions feel free to ask. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I apologise for that report's being 'malformed', but I am not as au fait with Wikipedia protocols as perhaps you administrators are. I do have a question, yes.  Is that feel free to ask here, on your talk page or somewhere else?  In any case, it is how do I report a user for what I believe amounts to his/her abusing his/her position?  Ideally, this will be achieved without going through an obstacle course... ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:AN or WP:ANI for behavior, WP:XRV can be used if you're challenging a specific administrative action. Have you attempted to resolve this with the editor in question yet? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish, Wikipedia jargon is a foreign language to me; could you explain it in layman's terms, please? I have tried to engage in healthy debate with the editor in question to absolutely no avail; it led to two of my article talk page topics' being shut down.  This explains my request for his/her behaviour to be reviewed and, I hope, censured. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Adolphus Frederick V, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Here is the edit summary for my latest revision to that article:
 * '"Stranger" is not in the citation, either. Perhaps, because of this and the removal of the "Companion" that I included before the revert, this article's inclusion in the "Extra Knights Companion of the Garter" should be removed, too.'
 * So, who put 'Stranger' in the original? That user did not cite a reliable source, yet it seems to have gone unchallenged.  Likewise, the category of 'Extra Knights Companion of the Garter' is wrongly applied if Adolphus Frederick V was not a 'Stranger Knight Companion', as those terms are equivalent... ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi ZeroAlpha87! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article, such as changing a substantive honour to an honourary or non-substantive one, is not a minor edit. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, Celia Homeford. Thank you for informing me about 'minor edits', using the example of 'changing a substantive honour to an honourary [sic; 'honorary'] or non-substantive one'.  I shall bear in mind this policy going forwards. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Order of precedence in Scotland, you may be blocked from editing. ''The "outright rubbish" I mentioned in my edit summary is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of you making things up and then trying to get them on wikipedia.'' Celia Homeford (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I was not the original author of the material that you dispute; I reverted your edit based on what I deemed to be an unhelpful edit summary. Maybe re-read 'Help:Edit summary', particularly this bit: 'You should explain your edits, but without being overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict. Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines, or principles of good writing...' ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Open University
Hello ZeroAlpha87. I have just opened a discussion thread at Talk:Open University in which you might be interested. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, Martinevans123. I appreciate your having done that; I shall wade into the debate now. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

United Kingdom honours order of wearing
Hello, just letting you know that I’ve reverted your edits to United Kingdom honours order of wearing and Australian honours order of wearing, because the articles show the order which the honours are worn & their precedence, not what a recipient would be known as “recipient of” etc. That’s fluff that isn’t necessary on the articles. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Nford24 In that case, why is there 'fluff' such as 'Knight/Lady Companion' before 'Order of the Garter'? The usual lack of Wikipedia consistency that I tried to do something about... ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Spelling change to "Identity document"
You made spelling changes to Identity document, from US to UK spelling. However, the article has a mix of US and UK spelling before and after the changes. I reverted your spelling changes, but left your changes to a link. Please discuss on the article talk page which variety of English should be used in the article, keeping in mind the provisions of MOS:ENGVAR. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI
The last big discussion about "t/The Bahamas" was here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Based on this discussion, and MOS:THECAPS, I'll be reverting some page moves. @Firefangledfeathers: To be clear, the disambiguation should be "(Bahamas)", and not "(The Bahamas)", correct? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think we discussed disambiguation, but I'd think (Bahamas) for sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, most other examples, such as bands (The Beatles), do drop "The" from the disambiguator (Revolver (Beatles album), Something New (Beatles album), Every Little Thing (Beatles song), The End (Beatles song)). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My experience matches yours. Sorry for the slight tangent on your talk page ZA87! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Commas
Hello.

The comma you have been removing from several peers' articles actually needs to be there. It is paired with the first comma of the article, that which is immediately following the peerage title. It is also called the closing comma. See WP:COMMA, bullet point 2: "Don't let other punctuation distract you from the need for a comma, especially when the comma collides with a bracket or parenthesis".

Here's a step-by-step explanation as to why it is needed. The second comma is marked with "here".

here: v Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, was a British peer.

After adding the lifespan: here: v Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024), was a British peer.

After adding the postnominals ( preceding the lifespan, which in turn is preceding the closing comma): and here: v Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, OM, GBE, CVO (29 April 1936 – 26 February 2024), was a British peer.

For people without a peerage title – or something similar that is enclosed by commas – there should be no comma, so you were right about the comma you removed here.

Thanks for understanding. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello.
 * I disagree, and can see nothing in 'WP:COMMA' or in the your step-by-step guide that actually explains why commas in this context are needed. I know a fair bit about the 'closing comma', indeed having spent much of my time on Wikipedia adding commas where they should be, mostly to close non-restrictive appositives.  My feeling with peerage titles is that they are integral to someone's name, forming part of it once allocated, and so are not parenthetical; it becomes one unit.
 * Because of this, more discussion is needed, I believe. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thanks for responding.


 * I take it from your mentioning of the closing comma that we at least agree on the following:
 * "On February 12, 2000 construction workers came across ...". With 2000 workers, that must have been a very large construction site (irony). That is obviously wrong grammatically, and what the author means is this:
 * "On February 12, 2000, construction workers came across ...".
 * Are we in agreement so far?


 * In response to your view that the peerage titles are integral of someone's name, and (implicitly, as I guess you mean) not a reason for a closing comma, see for instance:
 * Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling
 * Wedding of Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark, and Mary Donaldson
 * and other articles in Category:European royal weddings. (The article on the Wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles was previously named "Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles", i.e. there was a closing comma.) So even when the title can be viewed as an integral part of someone's name, grammar seems to apply.


 * If we go to the very first example in my post above, without the lifespan and without the postnominals, do you think the second comma is needed?


 * If not, doesn't that make "Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild" into something similar to a dangling modifier? The clause would be "4th Baron Rothschild was a British peer". There is no verb left for "Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild", which would be left dangling.
 * Or if you think it's needed there, at which of the later steps does it go away? When adding the lifespan? That would be in contradiction of the quote from the WP:COMMA guideline above. Or when adding the postnominals, on the other side of the lifespan parenthetical? That wouldn't make sense.


 * Where do you suggest this is discussed further?


 * HandsomeFella (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good afternoon; likewise.
 * Yes, I can definitely see the ambiguity in that first example, which, I suppose, is a good illustration of how punctuation, while designed to be helpful, can be dangerous in the wrong hands.
 * In the case of 'Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling', it could be argued that, if the Oxford comma is being used, that three people were involved; of course, even without the comma, it could mean that either two or three people were involved, and we must rely on common sense and logic to interpret it.
 * In the first example of your original post here, no, I do not believe that a comma is needed. Still, I acknowledge what you have said about 'dangling modifiers', but I do not believe that this is something to which that precise term applies.  I reckon that 'Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild' to be a single unit, as '4th Baron Rothschild' distinguishes him from anyone else with that exact set of first names and last name.  A comma to close '4th Baron Rothschild' makes it, in my mind at least, removable material, thus able to alter the sense.
 * Post-nominal letters, in itself, is a murky topic, in my view. Although, again, perhaps not the best place to mention this, I have noticed that the manual of style on that subject is flouted in many articles, with the difference between 'full-size' ones, with commas, and 'small' ones, without, blurring into one.  I maintain the view, though, that the comma after the lifespan details in even the last example of your first post this morning to be redundant.
 * As for further discussion, I believe that, pending a consensus, which - let's face it - probably is never going to be reached, the manual of style needs to be updated to include this very contention. Had I seen it in there before now, then I might have been persuaded not to make the changes - not because I agree with the points, but because it is in black and white.
 * Despite our disagreement on this, I thank you for taking the time and effort to do what you have done today. Unlike some editors/administrators that revert edits seemingly on a whim, and appear to think that, whereas other people must explain their actions, they do not have to, you embody what I think Wikipedia should be about: healthy debate and constructive criticism.
 * All the best. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Comma placement in Michael Curry (bishop)
Hello,

You removed the comma stating in your summary "He is probably not the only French Jesuit priest and scientist."


 * I restored the comma, with this summary:  "I believe a comma is appropriate after listing attributes of the named person "

You removed the comma again stating "Maybe you do believe that, but I suggest that you read the Wikipedia article on apposition.  The comma is not for aesthetics."


 * So now, you currently have the sentence reading: "... New Testament epistles, and the French Jesuit priest and scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin."

So thanks for pointing to the article on apposition. I was not familiar with that term. I'm a retired quality engineer, but all technical writing can skew what is "normal".

According to Apposition, you are treating the phrase as a restrictive appositive (which) provides information essential to identifying the phrase in apposition. It limits or clarifies that phrase in some crucial way, such that the meaning of the sentence would change if the appositive were removed. In English, restrictive appositives are not set off by commas.

Thereby, you are making ''"French Jesuit priest and scientist" essential to the meaning of the sentence, which it is clearly not. What is essential, is identifying de Chardin.''

I believe it is clearly a non-restrictive appositive (which) provides information not critical to identifying the phrase in apposition. It provides non-essential information, and the essential meaning of the sentence would not change if the appositive were removed. In English, non-restrictive appositives are typically set off by commas, like this:

" ... and the French Jesuit priest and scientist,A Pierre Teilhard de ChardinP"

Since the phase "French Jesuit priest and scientist"A can be removed without losing the phrase in appositionP

What I find confusing is your initial summary. If de Chardin was the only French Jesuit priest and scientist, then you would definitely have a sentence where either phrase could be used to identify the person, neither are critical to the sentence, so you have a non-restrictive appositive which should be set off by commas.

And if he is not the only French Jesuit priest and scientist, then they are just descriptive and can be removed, and again you have a non-restrictive appositive set off by commas.  I guess I don't see where  "the probably not the only "  comes into play in this case.

Also, punctuation serves at least two purposes. It helps remove ambiguity, and also reflects the way that we speak. Most people would pause between "scientist " and  "Pierre", so for that reason and the results of my discussion of the apposition article, I think the comma should be there.

However, you feel strongly about this, so I am not going to try to revert it back. But any feedback to this would be appreciated. • Bobsd • (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If the name were to go before the attributes, the comma would be right, because what followed could be removed without affecting the meaning − that is, it would still be clear exactly who was meant. With the attributes before, the name is the removable bit; however, that would leave 'the French Jesuit priest and scientist' alone, which is not enough to denote who is meant, unless Pierre Teilhard de Chardin were the only French Jesuit priest and scientist.  I doubt that he were, though, hence the original comma removal.
 * The same thing often happens in sentences such as 'Ken Barlow is a fictional character in the British ITV soap opera, Coronation Street'. The comma there is wrong, because it is not the only British ITV soap opera, and the title, coming after the comma, is the bit that should be able to be removed without stopping anyone identifying the subject.  Occasionally you get it without the definite article − for example, 'Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, supports Liverpool F.C.', in which the commas are, again, wrong, because they mean that 'Sadiq Khan' may be removed without affecting the sense.  Alas, that leaves the illogical 'Mayor of London supports Liverpool F.C.', which, bar its possible usage as a headline where the idea is to save space, is unsuitable in standard English. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, but I'm still confused. You said "With the attributes before, the name is the removable bit". Are you saying that the part of the sentence that is to be considered as "removable" to determine the proper use of the comma, is the bit after the comma?  In other words, always bitP,bitA ???
 * Apposition also uses this example of A,P non-restrictive:
 * The first to arrive at the houseA, sheP unlocked the front door. (we don't need to know that she was the first to arrive)
 * which is how I view
 * " ... and the French Jesuit priest and scientist,A Pierre Teilhard de ChardinP" (we don't need to know that he was a priest and scientist. I think in this case, we have a bitA, bitP  structure)
 * I think the key to this whole problem is that the usage can really be ambiguous. It depends upon the intent of the author:
 * Apposition says: The same phrase can be a restrictive appositive in one context and a non-restrictive appositive in another:
 * My brotherP NathanA is here. – Restrictive: I have several brothers, and the one named Nathan is here.
 * My brotherP, NathanA, is here. – Non-restrictive: I have only one brother and, as an aside, his name is Nathan.
 * I am suggesting that the phrase in apposition is whatever the author considers to be the phrase in apposition (non-removable) which we may know after the fact.  Hence the need for editors and peer reviews.
 * My brotherA, NathanP, is here. – Non-restrictive: Lawyer has been waiting for Nathan to arrive, and as an aside, he is my brother.
 * My brotherP, NathanA, is here. – Non-restrictive: Lawyer has been waiting for a sibling to arrive, and as an aside, his name is Nathan
 * And, "If there is any doubt that the appositive is non-restrictive, it is safer to use the restrictive punctuation. In the example above, the restrictive first sentence is still correct even if there is only one brother. "
 * I would write the process thusly:
 * 1) DEF: the phrase in appositionP is critical to the meaning of the sentence and must be preserved.
 * 2) DEF: the appositive phraseA provides information about the phrase in appositionP
 * 3) Determine which of the phrases are essential to the meaning of the sentence. (which is the phrase in appositionP)
 * 4) The other phrase is the appositive phraseA (there could be multiple)
 * 5) If the identified appositive phraseA can not be removed without changing the essential meaning of the sentence, then it is a restrictive appositive not set off by commas.
 * 6) If the identified appositive phraseA can be removed without changing the essential meaning of the sentence, then it is a non-restrictive appositive set and are separated by commas.
 * 7) If it can not be determined from the context of the sentence which phase of many are essential, treat them all as non-restrictive appositives and separate by commas.
 * Great discussion, thanks for your patience. Most of my work was in writing software requirements and test procedures for FAA, DoD and NASA, so if things can't be described by a process, bullet list or flowchart, it is not going to create robust code.  I think the Apposition article is pretty good, but could be simplified.  Then there are hyperbatons, false title, and other such.  Yikes!!!
 * Anyway, I've learned a few new terms, thanks for providing your insights.
 * • Bobsd • (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Whoops, got that bass-ackwards, didn't I?
 * "If there is any doubt that the appositive is non-restrictive, it is safer to use the restrictive punctuation. In the example above, the restrictive first sentence is still correct even if there is only one brother. "
 * So 7) If it can not be determined from the context of the sentence which phase of many are essential, treat them all as restrictive appositives not set off by commas. • Bobsd •  (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So 7) If it can not be determined from the context of the sentence which phase of many are essential, treat them all as restrictive appositives not set off by commas. • Bobsd •  (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

List of titles and honours of Charles III
Hello, the Japanese government gazette has decided to award Charles III the coller on the date of June 14. It is true that Charles III was given his coller on June 25. However, if you are confident in your idea, there is no need to delete the source. I understand that Japanese language sources are not welcome. Juqipedia (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contacting me about this; however, as you have identified, a foreign language source, with no easy way of translating it, might not be a viable reference. Are you able to find one in English? ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there are none at this time. I will consider future action depending on how the Japanese Wikipedia description changes. Of course, I understand that both English and Japanese Wikipedias are independent.--Juqipedia (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I write again only for the source?--Juqipedia (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not mind, but I should not be surprised if someone else were to revert it, even if your edit summary is comprehensive. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input on this.--Juqipedia (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)