User talk:Akadunzio

Dag Akadunzio, heb je zin om op de vlaamse wikipedia te helpen met ons je bijdragen? Lotje (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racing Club de Bruxelles/K.F.C. Rhodienne-De Hoek

[edit]

We have one article about this club, and its different names throughout history. The article is located at K.F.C. Rhodienne-De Hoek and so the related categories should be named accordingly. Giant Snowman 17:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K.F.C. Rhodienne-De Hoek has nothing to do with Racing Club de Bruxelles Akadunzio (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have splitted the articles into a article about Racing Club de Bruxelles and K.F.C. Rhodienne-De Hoek. I think we need also a separate article about Racing White. Three different clubs in one article is too much. Akadunzio (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is one club with the same matricule, but with different names - therefore we have one article. If that is not the case then I suggest you raise a matter on the talk page.

However, to prevent further disruption / possible loss of page histories etc. if you edit like this again you will be blocked. Giant Snowman 10:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not one club. The only thing in common is the matricule, which is sold after the merger of White Star and Racing Club de Bruxelles. All this players never played for Rhodienne-De Hoek. Akadunzio (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sie also the nl-wiki and the fr-wiki. On both there are seperate articles for Racing Club de Bruxelles and Rhodienne-De Hoek, which is logical because a club is more than just a matricule. Akadunzio (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided any sources - I've started a wider discussion on the matter at WT:FOOTBALL (as you have failed to do so, despite my request), and if you continue to edit disruptively then I will report you. You're very lucky I've not blocked you already. Giant Snowman 12:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you provided sources that this players played for Rhodienne-De Hoek? Not my edits but yours are disruptive. And why should you block me? Akadunzio (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They played for a club which was later renamed/reformed as Rhodienne-De Hoek, and as the article is located there the category is located there. It's that simple, what can't you understand? Giant Snowman 12:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they never played for Rhodienne-De Hoek. Rhodienne-De Hoek is a club which is a merger of different clubs. One of this clubs was an existing club which obtained the free matricule of Racing Club de Bruxelles. You can verify this on the website of this club instead of threathening me. Is probably to easy when you can block me. Akadunzio (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you don't understand. They played for 'Racing Club de Bruxelles', yes? The successor club to that, and the place where the 'Racing Club de Bruxelles' article is located on English Wikipedia, is K.F.C. Rhodienne-De Hoek, OK? We only have one article per club and one set of categories per club, regardless of historical name changes. Giant Snowman 12:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly understand this. They played for Racing Club de Bruxelles and not for KFC Rhodienne-De Hoek, which is another club (see website of this club). The only thing in common is the matricule. Now you have one article for several clubs, which is very confusing. Akadunzio (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find some sources, I will split out the articles and create new categories. Giant Snowman 14:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Giant, here you see the history of La Rhodienne-Den Hoek. The club is founded in 1927. The switch of the matricule and the merger of Racing Club de Bruxelles and White Star Woluwe in 1963 is mentioned in it and thus is very clear this are different clubs. Akadunzio (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything more, for all teams? Giant Snowman 09:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with this 2 clubs. Akadunzio (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your changes, again - you need to bear in mind page histories and links and redirects, it is not as simple as you think. Giant Snowman 20:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's your proposal to correct this false information? Akadunzio (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because as I stated simply moving the article/category is not enough, we have to consider page histories, correct location, links etc. If these are separate clubs we need separate articles, not a renamed one. I have asked for you to provide more information so we can work out how best to do this. Giant Snowman 16:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the history of Rhodienne-Den Hoek and I have split the article in 2 seperate articles. What do you need more to act? Akadunzio (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, we need more information so we can execute the split properly. Giant Snowman 08:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your information that those players played for Rhodienne-De Hoek? I already gave you the information that Rhodienne-De Hoek is a different club as Racing Club de Bruxelles. Akadunzio (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Racing Club de Bruxelles

[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Royal Racing Club de Bruxelles, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://dictionary.sensagent.com/k%20f%20c%20rhodienne%20verrewinkel/en-en/.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portobuffolé

[edit]

Hi Akadunzio, I must write in your English page because in nl.wikipedia my full IP range was blocked for 1 month (guess by whom?) for doing nothing worth even a 1-hour block. In the Portobuffolé talk a German admin (Tusculum) wrote that in de.wikipedia the name was the same as the Dutch version, but one day after, in the talk page of German Wiki, he himself agreed with me to change the name, so also the German page was moved. Then I came back on the Dutch talk, and just wrote, answering Tusculum, this: "We agreed to move also the German article at the end :-)". Block. For 1 month. For a /18 IP range which is used by a large part of Italians. And for doing "nothing" bad. In the last week, before that last edit of mine, I just wrote in your talk page, you certainly remember, and nothing else. Now I can't edit even a talk in nl.wikipedia to ask for the range unblock and to report this ABUSE. Because it "IS" an abuse, blocking not a single IP but such a wide range for literally NOTHING. Well, just for whim, actually. What can I do to make this illegal block end, since I can't do anything on the Dutch Wiki? Can you give me a good piece of advice? May you perhaps do something in nl.wikipedia, asking the right people? Even if I'm afraid that ToiraToira must have a huge amount of power there, like a Duce or a Fuehrer, so (s)he could "vote a veto" and maintain such an illegitimate block... For anything you'll be able to do, thank you in advance! (Just please don't copy-paste this full comment of mine as you did last time.) 151.20.9.127 (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you put such a comment here? When you have problems with MoiraMoira, you should adress this to the dutch wiki instead of your improperiate accusations on my talk page. Akadunzio (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but let me quote myself please: "I must write in your English page because in nl.wikipedia my full IP range was blocked for 1 month" 151.20.0.140 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for trying discussing in the Dutch talk about Portobuffolé! I'd like to give you my help with argumentations supporting the "é" spelling:

Dizionario d'Ortografia e di Pronunzia (DOP): it's the most authoritative source about official Italian orthography and diction (used by Italian dubbers, that's why it's on RAI demain, but it exists also in paper version since it was first made in 1969) and watch its bibliography [1] and authors [2]
Dizionario di Pronuncia Italiana (DiPI): it should be enough the name of the edurite linguist scholar Luciano Canepari (who also added the phonetic transcription in IPA, and "é" corresponds to /e/)
Treccani: well, in this case the on-line version it's not a reliable source about the correct accent, but in the dear paper version existing since 1929 the name is spelled with acute accent...
Other sources: Sapere.it by De Agostini publishing house here and here; Dizionario Italiano Olivetti where you can find the name of the inhabitants ("portobuffolese" sing. & "portobuffolesi" pl.) here and verify that the correct spelling is again "Portobuffolé"
These are the web versions of papery dictionaries, made to be a landmark for pronunciation and spelling of Italian words and names; if in nl.wikipedia they want to write down both spellings, also "Portobuffolè", no problem, but the first name and the article title should be "Portobuffolé" as proven by such sources, and I'm happy you've understood their reliability :-)

I've written here because on nl.wikipedia, as I said, my full IP range was blocked by that abuser, or I had brought these argumentations there by myself. Thank you again for your interest in this issue! 151.20.116.232 (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me secondary sources? Sources which evaluate this primary sources? Akadunzio (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the pages I'm goint to link can be considered reliable secondary sources, but I've found an Italian newspaper with an interview to a scholar about the DOP ([3]), a discussion in the "Accademia della Crusca" site where it was suggested the DiPI ([4]), and the personal page of a professor from Messina university commenting the most authoritative Italian dictionaries among the which there're DOP, DiPI and Treccani ([5]); since the first 2 are the most reliable ones, I think it should be enough proving these 2's reliability. 151.20.43.64 (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for disturbing you again, and if nl.wikipedia won't change the title I'll get over it, even if the fact that an admin has added in the text the "é" spelling is already good. I've seen, alas, that an Italian admin has joined that discussion to express himself against my point. Italian virtual world reflects Italian real society: in my nation criminals become governors and in the Italian Wiki trolls become admins... Ninonino in lmo.wikipedia has prevented the spelling change even if he was the only one against the change and, except me, also the Italian admin who renamed the pages in other Wikis and another registered user in Lombard Wiki were in favour of he page moving, ignoring our arguments and claiming his were stronger actually just because "his", even if I've already pointed out his errors. He's never been interested in "official comune denominations", nor in final accented Es, nor in Portobuffolé, but since I've been so much insisting (even if, in the end, I couldn't do anything but giving up), now he's trying convincing other Wikis to change the name once again just for the self-satisfation of contrtadicting me. Currish... Well, about his "arguments":

In Italian, "é" and "è" represent 2 different sounds: the first one is /e/ and the second one is /ɛ/. If we write "Portobuffolè" we must also read /portobuffo'lɛ/. But dictionaries, whose aim is not only to inform readers about correct spelling but also about correct "dictions", report /portobuffo'le/ as correct pronunciation and "Portobuffolé" as correct orthography. Simple.
His so dear "official sources" do_not_care_at_all_about_accents. Dictionaries do. The municipal sites use different spelling (é, è and e') in different pages and documents, or even in the same, such as the official municipal statute of Portobuffolé [6] where you find these 3 spellings in the first pages). So they're unreliable about accents. ISTAT list uses ONLY grave accents, so that the use of grave accent is not consistent. So it's unreliable about accents.
About the use of I and J (which isn't officially an Italian letter), he's just trying again to find argumentations having nothing to do with Portobuffolé but proving, on his opinion, he's right. It's a discussion about Portobuffolé, not about I/Jerago con Orago. However, only the DOP uses the "I" spellings without any "J" because it's "purist" about language and doesn't make distinctions between I and J. The other sources (DiPI, Treccani...) either report both I and J spellings, with rare exceptions, or report only the spelling with J, the one found in their statutes. He doesn't want to trust the DOP for such an inconsistent quibble? There're other sources to consult...

I would reply by myself if I could write on your Wiki, but I've given up hope about that; in case you didn't want to continue discussing about Portobuffolé in nl.wikipedia I understand and there's no problem, thanks anyway for what you've done so far! 151.20.24.22 (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Third Amateur Division

[edit]

Hi Akadunzio, I've reverted your edits on the Belgian Third Amateur Division . I agree that the two options are equivalent:

new → Belgian First Amateur Division, Belgian Third Division→ Belgian Second Amateur Division and Belgian Fourth Division → Belgian Third Amateur Division OR
Belgian Third Division → Belgian First Amateur Division, Belgian Fourth Division → Belgian Second Amateur Division and new → Belgian Third Amateur Division

However all the mentioned articles above have been rewritten according to the second option (please have a look). As a result, to remain consistent, the "new" division is the Belgian Third Amateur Division, while the Belgian First Amateur Division and Belgian Second Amateur Division are seen as continuations of the Belgian Third Division and the Belgian Fourth Division respectively. Thanks for sticking to that! --Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 08:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only just now saw your comment on the talk page. Will read details later today. Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 08:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 options are not equivalent, because from the actual Belgian Third Division, you can promote to the First Amateur Division or relegate to the Third Amateur Division. The rest stays in the Second Amateur Division. From the actual Fourth Division it is possible to promote to the Second Amateur Division and relegate to the Privincial Leagues. The others stay in the Third Amateur Division. So only the first option is the right one. Akadunzio (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Akadunzio. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian records

[edit]

Please have a look at http://www.athlerecords.net/pages/records.php or IAAF statistic hand book. Thank you.Montell 74 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what record should I look? Akadunzio (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Akadunzio. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Akadunzio. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Akadunzio. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Van Brabant

[edit]

Hi. Thanks for spotting the confussion between Lionel and Georges Van Brabant. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian newspapers

[edit]

Hi there, great to see you sorting out rowers from a long time ago. When you added a death date for Marcel Roman, you quoted an obituary. Do you by chance have access to old newspapers through libraries or something like that? I'm asking because I've written a semi-decent article for Lucien Brouha, with scientific papers as my main sources. Would love to see an obituary. He died on 6 October 1968 in Liège. Any chance you could help? Not urgent; anytime will do. Schwede 66 02:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found his obituary in Le Soir of 10 October 1968 Akadunzio (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Will you send me a copy (my French is pretty much non-existent, but my wife is pretty good at it) or will you deal with it yourself? Either way, I'll send you a Wikimail so that you can email it to me if you wish. Schwede 66 20:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I've added to the article. Did you by chance record the page number, or any other details of the newspaper (volume, edition, etc)? Schwede 66 22:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was on page 8 under Nécrologie. Le Soir, jeudi 10 octobre 1968 (82e année, no 238), édition matin. Akadunzio (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from the other side of the world. The Lucien Brouha article is going through a GA (Great Article) review at the moment and the question came up: when did he get married? I've found the details but it's in a primary source, which isn't good enough. I wonder whether you could be so kind once more and look at Belgian newspapers. Brouha married Elizabeth King Shaler on 23 July 1938 at Corbion. The only bother with this is that there are two places in Wallonia of this name: wa:Corbiyon-dlé-Lenion and nl:Corbion_(Luxemburg). It would be fantastic if there's a newspaper article that covers this. I'll also send you an email for an easy reply. Thanks heaps! Schwede 66 20:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Belgian newspapers I found nothing. But here you can read that the Shalers lived in Corbion near to Bouillon. Akadunzio (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup! Schwede 66 04:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

[edit]

Hi. You recently moved the following pages of these Belgian rowers:

However, you have not supplied any sources that these names are correct. Do you have sources to verfiy these names? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Again, you're moving pages without sourcing any of the name changes as you go. This looks like disruption. Please do not move any more pages unless you source the name change first. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that I should provide sources for editing and someone can start an article relying on unsourced references. Could I challenge you to find any source where Emile Sadzawka has rowed any competition? Akadunzio (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's some in the article already showing he rowed at the Olympics. The WP:BURDEN is with YOU to source anything you add/change. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are now edit warring. Please DO NOT re-add unsourced content again, as you could be blocked from editing. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are edit warring. You are placing false and unsourced information. Akadunzio (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not - you are. The last source you added did not contain the any reference to the name of the individual. Please stop doing this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Sazawka (RSN Brussel), Georges Léonet (id.) Ok, they misspelled the familyname. Akadunzio (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, I'm still waiting on any source for your rower Emile Sadzawksa. I advise you searching in newspapers instead of starting an edit war. Next time I will start a new article and let your nonsense article remain on Wikipedia Akadunzio (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Henri Godin. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revert correct information. If you believe it was incorrect you also can start a discussion. If you don't know anything about the item, go playing in you own sandbox. Akadunzio (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Graeffe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint-Gilles. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]