User talk:Croystron

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Croystron! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider providing edit summaries; thank you! ... ;-) ...

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^{(become old-fashioned!)} 16:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Melia Kreiling. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Thedarkknightli (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lengthy welcome

Hi Croystron. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please use proper formatting

You have already been told about the Manual of Style, but you have made countless edits ignoring it, such as [1] and [2]. Please italicize film and TV series titles correctly. Nicholas0 (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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.

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Andrea Mandel-Campbell

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Andrea Mandel-Campbell, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kasia Bodurka

Hello Croystron,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kasia Bodurka for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Yue🌙 05:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joanna Pang

The article Joanna Pang has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable actor. Does not meet the basic criteria for notability for a biography.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Croystron! Your additions to Joanna Pang have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Mandel-Campbell moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Andrea Mandel-Campbell. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources, it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and its needs significant work. Its largely unsourced. She is not actor. . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. scope_creep^Talk 10:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andrea Mandel-Campbell (January 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Andrea Mandel-Campbell and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Croystron! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MurielMary (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors

Thanks for contributing to the article Beverly Hills High School. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Your recent editing history at Corinne Camacho shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox alma_mater and education parameters

Hello @Croystron. I am @Archer1234. I have noticed recent edits where you have added information to the infoboxes of persons with the |alma_mater= and |education= parameters. Please note that, per {{infobox person}}, we can use |alma_mater= or |education=, but not both.

In addition, we include only post-secondary educational institutions and only those from which a degree/certification was earned (exceptions are allowed based on talk page consensus for unusual situations like Bill Gates). So, no high schools, secondary schools, primary schools, etc.

|alma_mater= should only include the name of the last-attended higher education institution. If listing more than one post-secondary institution or if including any additional details like degree, year, or field of study, use |education=, not |alma_mater=.

If you have any questions for me about this, you can ask them here or on my talk page. Alternatively, you can ask at the Teahouse, where experienced editors are available to answer questions. Thank you and happy editing. — Archer1234 (t·c) 23:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Croystron. Thank you for your work on Emily Banks (actress). North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Laur Allen

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Laur Allen, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elaine Giftos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temperature Rising. 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) 17:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuala Fitzgerald moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Nuala Fitzgerald. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Waqar💬 14:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nuala Fitzgerald (May 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ingenuity was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Unfortunately, this does not meet notability guidelines with only one significant source. I did find a couple news articles on Newspapers.com, though, so maybe try there? (you should be able to access this via the Wikipedia Library).

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nuala Fitzgerald and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 02:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Andrea Mandel-Campbell

Hello, Croystron. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Andrea Mandel-Campbell".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 04:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please provide edit summaries

Hello Croystron. In editing Diana Barrington I saw that you made several prior edits, including adding content, with no edit summaries. You have been asked before so, again, please provide a summary of every edit you make. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history. Summaries help other editors by (a) providing a reason for the edit, (b) saving the time to open up the edit to find out what it's all about, and (c) providing information about the edit on diff pages and lists of changes (such as page histories and watchlists).

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit and a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.

As a reminder: When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Many who are ignorant of Wikipedia policy to add edit summaries fail to add them. Some ignore this basic brief task; however, failure seems arrogant and inconsiderate specially since they are so easy to add. According to Wikipedia's consensus policy, all edits should be explained —either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. We look forward to your using edit summaries per the consensus policy. Regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why refuse to add edit summaries?

Hello Croystron. In editing Margot Kidder I saw that you made additions with no edit summaries. You could have put "+ awards" in the summary box. You have been asked twice before so, again, please provide a summary of every edit you make. If the edit is minor, the "This is a minor edit" box can be checked. See, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Minor_edit. A good rule of thumb is that only edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content may be flagged as minor edits. Your failure to add edit summaries seems arrogant and is inconsiderate specially since they are so easy to add. According to Wikipedia's consensus policy, all edits should be explained —either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Persistent MoS violation and refusal to explain. Thank you. Thedarkknightli (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Croystron,

Please take a moment when you return to editing to respond to the complaint at ANI. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Croystron. Besides placing this on your talk page, I am pinging you to require that you to respond to the discussion at Persistent MoS violation and refusal to explain since it does involve you and you definitely need to respond. Looking forward to your response, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hi, I've blocked you for two weeks, per this AN/I discussion. Please understand that, due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, you're required to communicate when requested. You're welcome to resume editing after the block expires, but I do wish you'd be more cooperative with those editors with legitimate concerns if you'd continue to be here. BorgQueen (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Nuala Fitzgerald

Hello, Croystron. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nuala Fitzgerald, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024 Why won't you provide edit summaries?

Hello Croystron. You've been asked at least three times before (check your talk page) - why won't you provide edit summaries? Your failure appears arrogant and is inconsiderate specially since they are so easy to add. Again, according to Wikipedia's consensus policy, all edits should be explained —either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Please respond. Please understand that, due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, you're required to communicate when requested. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother. It's clear that the user is oblivious to the existence of the user's own talk page. Take it to ANI and eventually progress to a block - that would, if the user wants to resume editing, get the user's attention. 2600:1012:A023:B111:8160:6199:F91:F840 (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more of Croystron ignoring the talk page entries. He was blocked for two weeks before when he did not respond that doesn't seem to have any effect. Not only when he edits is he informed of talk page entries, I have pinged this editor separately. And am doing it, the third time, again:Croystron. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quaerens-veritatem I think I'll let another admin handle this. Take it to AN/I, in a new post please. BorgQueen (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that with another longer block, either the user (and problematic edits) will stop, or the user will take note that the attempts to edit aren't working and will be compelled to say something in response. Repeatedly begging where the editor isn't present isn't going to help.

With that said, the user's recent November edits do show some edit summaries. So failure to communicate won't qualify for arbitration unless paired with some other issue. 2600:1012:A023:B111:4019:66C1:5791:44BD (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice November 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Valereee (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to anyone lifting this, with or without a correctly formatted unblock request, if the editor starts communicating. Valereee (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Croyston. When other editors mention that you should communicate they are referring to Wikipedia:Communication is required. In addition to using edit summaries (Help:Edit summary), something I see you have been doing more of in the past few months and thanks for that, you need to respond to and acknowledge what other editors are saying. Even just a simple reply when an editor leaves a comment here. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Croyston. Concern was expressed that this was too aggressive, so I'm pulling it back a step: please come in here and communicate before you edit again. We want to make sure you understand both that you can communicate with other editors, and that you're willing to. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to communicate better with other users of wikipedia. Croystron (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So now at minimum we do know you understand that there are places for you to communicate with other editors, which is always our primary concern. For general communication, edit summaries help prevent wasting other editors' time, which is why so many editors have asked you to use them. We also want to see you responding to concerns expressed here on your talk. Ideally, we'd like to see you also responding to appropriate pings to article talk pages, though that's less crucial as long as you aren't reverting other editors. Valereee (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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.

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 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) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]