Jump to content

User talk:Chetsford/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

17:59:07, 3 March 2018 review of submission by Comrade1986


Comrade1986 (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kuratorium concert 1944.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kuratorium concert 1944.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Scott G. Borg

Hello! Your submission of Scott G. Borg at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chetsford. You have new messages at 4TheWynne's talk page.
Message added 22:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for J.E. Rhoads & Sons

On 5 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article J.E. Rhoads & Sons, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that until it closed in 2009, J.E. Rhoads & Sons was the longest continually-operating company in the United States, having been in business for more than three centuries? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/J.E. Rhoads & Sons. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, J.E. Rhoads & Sons), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Hi Chestford,

I am quite distressed due to the fact that the article Draft:Khethukuthula Mbonambi was rejected because my references were unreliable and none notable. I took that in to account and I have added at least 2 news citations from Africa's second biggest news channel (eNCA|url=https://www.enca.com) and one from the Huffington Post South Africa. I have also avoided using references from his personal website to avoid conflict of interest since the does not meet Wikipedia's Reliable Sources Criteria. Please advice me further if these are also not enough to substantiate the information provided in the article.Professor Sbonelo Mhlongo 17:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyprof7 (talk • contribs)

Hi Mightyprof7#top - I apologize for causing you distress. You have three references that are potentially notable. One is from the Huffington Post, however, I can't confirm it actually exists as the link is broken. The other two are from OFM News and eNews Channel Africa 24 regarding the same event and don't provide deep biographical information. The rest of your sources (e.g. Twitter, etc.) are generally unacceptable for Wikipedia (see: WP:RS). Ergo, the article currently has just two sources for all intents and purposes, both containing only incidental coverage of the subject. Two sources in which a person receives only incidental mention are not sufficient to meet the high threshold of WP:BLP. You may also want to review WP:BLP1E. Let me know if you have any questions. Chetsford (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Request on 19:10:48, 5 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Jonnycakez


Will removing the link be sufficient for approval? Providing proof of a person's early life when it's not well documented by public sources can be impossible.

Jonnycakez (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jonnycakez - it would have to be removed, yes, as WP:BLPs have to be supported by evidence their content is actually true. That said, simply removing it would doubtfully let this pass the WP:GNG. In general, if a person's life is not well documented by public sources, that's a good indicator that person is not notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Chetsford (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join Women in Red

Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.
We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.49% of English Wikipedia's biographies).

Our priorities for March: Women's History Month (This event is a collaboration with two other wiki organizations: our article campaign supports Art+Feiminism, while our image campaign supports Whose Knowledge?) #1day1woman Global Initiative

To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

15:24:54, 6 March 2018 review of submission by Chkim88


I've submitted another reference that is more credible. Is there a specific reference or area of the article that needs a better reference? I am unsure as to which references are not credible enough as I am new to Wikipedia Chkim88 (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Chkim88 - I may not have an opportunity to review this a second time. Might I suggest you post a link and request for feedback on your draft to the WP:TEAHOUSE? I think you might receive more holistic input on the article's acceptability there. Chetsford (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Emanuel Moravec

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Emanuel Moravec you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Definition of collaboration

I am contacting you here rather than on Talk:Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II as I don't have a (further) fully-formed argument for that page. I am interested in your choice of definition of collaboration (and I note you have cited sources). In my view, the definition should be broad. I don't know if you are familiar with the many images, in liberated WW2 Europe, of the girlfriends of German soldiers having their heads shaved to label them as collaborators. Certainly those who carried out or witnessed such acts had no doubt that the women involved were collaborators - yet this is certainly not any sort of government-authorised activity. Similarly, when British POWs were liberated, they were asked for details of collaboration by any other POWs. Books written by POWs refer to a few individuals who chose to collaborate.

So the definition seems to stretch from the Vichy government and all the subordinate government agencies (obvious state involvement, although only a puppet government), through those who volunteered to join, e.g., the Lithuanian Security Police and thereby participate in the Holocaust (I do not know how government sponsored this was, but it was an organisation recruited for the purpose - those perpetrators had a choice), to women who had boyfriends in the occupying forces, thereby earning the contempt of their compatriots. And there are probably lots of other examples in various shades of grey. The problem is that some academic writers have applied definitions so that their books make sense, but rather ignoring the contemporary or common usages. (And it is a failing of Wikipedia that definitions are sometimes picked out that, in the source, say "for the purposes of this book/study/paper, the definition of ..... is ...".)

My purpose in contacting you is to see if you think my concerns about the article's definition, and the academic definitions that you cite, are reasonable (even if you do not agree with me). I am hoping your answer would help me develop my arguments (or, even, abandon them).
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi ThoughtIdRetired - I agree that we can sometimes get into a situation in which, when multiple reliable sources make contradictory statements, we try to apply a head-counting methodology to determine who has "more" sources which is not the best approach and is definitely something of which we need to be attentive. Chetsford (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

20:14:45, 7 March 2018 review of submission by Cdehnert


I see that you have rejected the page for being too much like an advertisement, but that seems far from accurate. The post focuses on a tractor restoration event for kids that has existed for 20 years. For those in rural America, this sort of thing is interesting and is a known quantity. The vast majority links in the post target coverage that highlights individuals that have participated in the event. Very few lead to content from past or present sponsors. There is more of a commercial tie to a Wikipedia post about something like the Bonnaroo Music Festival or Burning Man, which sell tickets to generate revenue, so their posts act as an advertisement to some extent. The event has no tickets, generates not revenue, and for all but the winners cost money to participate in. This lists past winners of the event, similar to results pages for Olympic events, elections or sporting leagues. Admittedly, tractor restoration is a very rural America activity, and not high in the minds of those in urban centers, but its an event with a history that is significant to many. The references to sponsors are limited and only used when relevant and most links point to coverage of individual participants in an effort to show that the event is about participants, not the sponsor and also that the event has been around for years and has generated coverage in publications like the NYT and WSJ. Perhaps if you could provide examples of where I have clearly overstepped a boundary, it would help, but please don't dismiss the post based on the fact that there is a brand associated with it, especially when the brand isn't the focus of the post. Cdehnert (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cdehnert. You noted that "The vast majority links in the post target coverage that highlights individuals that have participated in the event. Very few lead to content from past or present sponsors." - According to our policy, "Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations." Our policy goes on to state "Normally, only one official link is included." (you have 16) and also "If an article has external links, the standard format is to place them in a bulleted list under a primary heading at the end of the article." While you may have a valid argument, I am not at liberty to unilaterally override Wikipedia's policies, unfortunately. Sorry. In general, I would recommend you remove 15 of the 16 links and include the remaining link in an "external links" section at the end of the article and then resubmit, however, you may also want to check-in at the WP:TEAHOUSE for some additional suggestions. Chetsford (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

review of draft:dioxide Materials

I am new, and do not understand the review of draft:Dioxide Materials.

It is certainly true that the section on newspapers was designed to verify notability, and should be deleted before final review, but there are independent sources for all of the statements in the article. I am not sure how it is an advertisement.

Maselrich (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Chetsford. Thank you for moving the Group SJR draft into the main space. Would you be willing to add wikilinks to the existing mentions of "Group SJR" in the J. Walter Thompson and Shorty Awards articles, so the new article isn't an "orphan"? Also, I am curious if you might have any feedback or suggestions for the related draft, Draft:Alexander Jutkowitz. Figured I'd ask since you're combing through the Articles for Creation queue and might be able to identify needed improvements. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the wikilinks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I saw you linked "Group SJR" within the citation, as opposed to the Wikipedia article's prose. Do you mind taking another look at the J. Walter Thompson article? Inkian Jason (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC) This has been resolved. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Chuck Close

Hi Chetsford,

You recently reverted these edits by Sarah.billings with the edit summary "need sources" without starting a talk page discussion. The edits appear to cite a number of sources. Could you take a moment to quickly explain the revert? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kevin - it looks like I reverted Sarah.billings' edits in the process of reverting the following unsourced addition by a different editor [1] since the claim of being a creator of conceptual art wasn't supported in the body of the article:
Close can also be described as a creator of Conceptual Art, in that many works reveal a different visual result when viewed from different distances. Close developed a grid and individually painted cell technique of forced abstraction, creating a vocabulary and language for the observer that is read clearly at a distance as a rendered image.
I agree, the edits by Sara.billings appear properly sourced, and it was not my intention they be reverted. I apologize for the error on my part. Chetsford (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

review of draft:Idi Ma Prema Katha (Film)

Hello Chetsford,

I did improve the sources, in fact, I have provided all the sources that have till now. Due to the director debut film, it has no such sources, but which I have provided in this article was high-end sources.

Kindly consider the draft again and let me know which sources you want me to improve correctly.

Lasya Elzibeth

Hi Lasya Elzibeth - please review WP:RS for more information about acceptable sources for WP articles. While the Times of India is certainly a great source, other references like IMDB, etc., leave a bit to be desired. You may want to check in at the WP:TEAHOUSE for some more holistic advice. Chetsford (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Emanuel Moravec

The article Emanuel Moravec you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Emanuel Moravec for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

13:43:12, 12 March 2018 review of submission by MPhilMediaArt


"MPhilMediaArt thanks - can you point me to widespread coverage in multiple media outlets like major newspapers, national magazines, scholarly journals, or books from academic publishers establishing these two points and their significance? Chetsford (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)"

Dear Chetsford,

thank you for Your fast and kind reply.

You asked me to point You to exact and significant citations that show Mr. Bielicky's artistic prowess.

I had a hard time finding citations that cement Mr. Bielicky's contributions, at least those which conform them in a peer-reviewed manner.

As You know the Arts are no exact science and an artist's participation in the first ever digital art exhibition (see Karl Gerbel, Peter Weibel (Eds.). Intelligente Ambiente (Ars Electronica). Wien, PVS Verleger. 1994. pp. 82ff. ISBN 3901196137) and the fact that his work Menora is among the first ever acquisitions of the worldwide first media museum ZKM - in Arts is more discourse and historic contribution than many artists would like to admit, to protect their inventive status of being among the most creative specimen human history has to offer.

So, the very fact that his Exodus GPS-performance was not described as such in the many citations that are listed in my article, but as a virtual traveller-blog, a traveller-performance and worldwide performance only proves how significant his work is.

Still I did find two citations that explicitly state that Mr. Bielicky is one of the originators of "virtual travelogs" or "virtuelle Reisetagebücher":

http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/werke/exodus/ please find the EN button to see the English version, the go-to reference for everything media art in Germany

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/cyberkunst-wo-es-kein-da-gibt-a-13556.html (the most important left wing magazine in Germany)

Looking forward to Your reply, with best regards,

Paul

MPhilMediaArt (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, MPhilMediaArt. "I had a hard time finding citations that cement Mr. Bielicky's contributions" - This is generally an indicator that a person does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia only includes biographies of living people if they are widely covered in mainstream media, scholarly journals, or books by major publishing houses. Wikipedia is simply a reflection of what already exists in other sources, it does not originate new research into people. I agree your source to Der Spiegel confirms Bielicky is a real, living human. However, proof that a person exists is not sufficient for inclusion in WP. Per WP:BASIC, a person needs to have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Having his name once mentioned in one article in Der Spiegel does not meet the standard of "significant coverage" in "multiple sources". "So, the very fact that his Exodus GPS-performance was not described as such in the many citations that are listed in my article, but as a virtual traveller-blog, a traveller-performance and worldwide performance only proves how significant his work is." Significant work receives significant coverage. While pointing to the absence of significant coverage as proof of significance makes an interesting Escher-esque argument, WP's policies are a bit more utilitarian, I'm afraid. Chetsford (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Guido Jung

Hello! Your submission of Guido Jung at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ashmedai 119 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Führerhauptquartier Tannenberg

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I reviewed your nomination of Führerhauptquartier Tannenberg and gave it an AGF checkmark (due to the hook's source being in a language other than English). Thanks for your contributions here! Jwrosenzweig (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much, Jwrosenzweig! Chetsford (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Emanuel Moravec

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Emanuel Moravec has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

As always, thank you very much for your excellent work, Twofingered Typist! Chetsford (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Request on 15:31:59, 13 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Corcoran42



Corcoran42 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been working on getting the article "Dramatic Publishing Company" submitted for months and it keeps getting denied saying the sources aren't credible enough. I've searched similar companies to Dramatic Publishing such as, Dramatis Play Service, Playscripts Inc., and Pioneer Drama. All of these companies have had their pages approved with similar or less content than what I've provided. Can you please explain to me and help me understand why their pages are acceptable and mine is not? And what do I need to change to get it accepted? Am I just adding it to the wrong section of Wikipedia? Do different sections even exist? Thank you for your help. Corcoran42 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Corcoran42 - "Can you please explain to me and help me understand why their pages are acceptable and mine is not?" You're correct, Playscripts should not be in Wikipedia and is now in the process of being deleted. I'll nominate Dramatis for deletion shortly. "And what do I need to change to get it accepted?" You'll just need to provide a substantial selection of reliable sources that meet our corporate depth standards. If you haven't already, you may want to review WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH. Basically, multiple substantial incidences of coverage (not just fleeting or incidental mentions) that provide in-depth coverage of the company, and no press releases or other non-independent sources. Hyperion Books is a good model publisher article you may also want to check-out. Chetsford (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Attack on the United States embassy in Addis Ababa

On 17 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Attack on the United States embassy in Addis Ababa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that among those rescued by the British Army during the attack on the United States embassy in Addis Ababa was a reporter's pet cheetah? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Attack on the United States embassy in Addis Ababa. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Attack on the United States embassy in Addis Ababa), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

{{DYKbotdo 00:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


Geoff Green

Hello,

I'm just wondering if you could restore the Geoff Green article to the state it was in following pdfpdf's last edit to the page: edition. I would like this to be the latest edition of the article whilst I submit a plea concerning the reliability of one of my sources.

Regards, EyesoftheFlash (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi EyesoftheFlash - I'm sorry, but I don't understand your request. Chetsford (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Request on 15:09:31, 19 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Mwmcelroy



Mwmcelroy (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


Dear Chetsford:

Regarding your rejection of the page I submitted yesterday on the basis that it is merely a neologism, the term "Context-Based Sustainability" is now regularly used in commerce and has been featured in independent, reliable and published sources including the following:

1. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), especially in its 2015 report, "Raising the Bar – Advancing Environmental Disclosure in Sustainability Reporting" (http://www.sustainableorganizations.org/Raising_the_Bar_-_Advancing_Environmental_Disclosure_in_Sustainability_Reporting.pdf) in which it wrote:

"The context principle was introduced as early as 2002 when it was embedded in the second generation of the GRI reporting framework. However, partially due to lack of available guidance on how to apply context to the reporting, it has largely been absent in corporate reporting. In an effort to fill this context gap, several organizations have taken important steps to put scientific context back into sustainability reporting. At the core of the context-based reporting movement is the Center for Sustainable Organizations (CSO). CSO developed Context-Based Sustainability (CBS), a framework for implementing Sustainability Context through the use of thresholds and allocations."

In the same report, UNEP added:

"All companies should apply a context-based approach to sustainability reporting, allocating their fair share impacts on common capital resources within the thresholds of their carrying capacities."

2. Harvard Business Review in a 2015 article entitled, "A Better Scorecard for Your Company's Sustainability Efforts (https://hbr.org/2015/12/a-better-scorecard-for-your-companys-sustainability-efforts), in which it wrote:

"The terms 'context-based' and 'Sustainability Context' are accepted terminology for measurement and reporting that compare corporate impacts to social, economic, and environmental thresholds."

I can supply other references if needed, but these two are quite prominent and should suffice.

Regards, Mark Mwmcelroy (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mwmcelroy - while the additional references are appreciated, they would need to be added to the article draft before you resubmit as the next reviewer would be unlikely to look on my Talk page to find them. Best of luck! Chetsford (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Museum of Salt and Pepper Shakers

Thank you for your acceptance of the article on the Museum of Salt and Pepper Shakers. As you suggested, I have added a couple of links pointing to the page (now that it is created), and removed the bullet points in the History section. I believe the bullet points in the In the Media section are appropriate. I have added a new sentence in that section and will continue to improve it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aludden1 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nicolas Sarkozy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

File:John Hirasaki.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Hirasaki.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Alleged Libyan influence in the 2007 French elections

I'm not sure how that's an NPOV issue as it correctly describes the issue and it's inevitably connected to Sarkozy – like Fillon affair, it's hard to call by any name other than "Penelopegate" or something that refers to Fillon. (For comparison, French Wikipedia calls it the "Gaddafi–Sarkozy affair" while German Wikipedia opts for "Libya affair".) Mélencron (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Mélencron - when I created the article I named it Gaddafi-Sarkozy affair, however, on second thought I regretted doing so as the name - as constructed - implies this is a term in actual use to refer it, which isn't the case and also implies guilt on the part of Sarkozy by suggesting there was an affair, which is yet unproved. "Alleged Libyan influence in the 2007 French elections" seems to more clearly indicate this is simply an article title rather than a proper name. "Libya affair" seems rather ambiguous to me. What do you think? Chetsford (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
IMO, the term "influence" seems a bit too vague; perhaps "Libyan financing" instead? Also, I personally don't see any issue in referring to it by that name (in either order), as it is actually used in the press (search using "Kadhafi"). Mélencron (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
That reasoning makes sense to me, Mélencron. If you want to change it, I won't object. Many thanks for the feedback. Chetsford (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_9&oldid=1212140491"