Jump to content

User talk:Extraordinary Writ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By far the funniest and most clever Wikipedia page I randomly stumbled on. Kudos. The fish genuinely made me laugh out loud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumtimz I B Learnin (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

[edit]
Hello, Extraordinary Writ. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Mlody1312 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like other users have provided the guidance you're looking for, but if you have further questions, please ask them on-wiki rather than by email. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Saad Akbar (15:10, 14 October 2024)

[edit]

Hello i want to know if there are any methods or tools to find references and citations related to an article? --Saad Akbar (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Saad Akbar. It really depends on the topic: sometimes a simple Google search will be enough; sometimes advanced searches with Google Books, Google Scholar, and/or the Internet Archive can help; sometimes there's no substitute for physical books at a library. We do require that sources be reliable, but beyond that there's a lot of flexibility in what you can use. Let me know if there's a specific article you're trying to find sources for. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Access to Content of deleted edits

[edit]

There are 4 deletions on the page of Banu Qurayza, all of which correspond to major edits. The reasons listed on the deletions is that they violate copywrite. The page itself is implicated in an ANI outcome (Incident archive 1159: Kaalakaa on Islam-related topics) where a consensus of uninvolved found that the user @Kaalakaa maintained a collection of NPOV abused pages on Islam related topics, including this page.

I would like to request a copy of the deleted content (3 most recent deletions), all of which were found violating RD1: Copywrite. I would like to salvage the knowledge and assess if portions of it remain relevant. If so, remedy it of its violation to be reintroduced, as long as its citations are of acceptable standard. Bro The Man (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your time and consideration. Bro The Man (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bro The Man. For legal reasons, copyrighted material cannot be restored. You can, however, look at the sources the material was copied from, which seem to have been (in order) [1], [2], and [3]. These do not seem to be reliable secondary sources, so I would not suggest using them in this article. But whatever sources you use, the content should be written in your own words, not copied. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse, I appreciate you making me aware of that fact. Taking your advice on board, I would still like to read the content that was removed to learn from the page to understand what was happening. Of course if it was blatant copy paste, obviously it's a violation. But I would like to know what was reference and what was written purely for the concepts that were stitched together.
I've reviewed the sources that you've shared and I agree that [1] and [3] are not up to par, where the first lacks referencing despite being an official publication with flowery language and the other being overtly negatively biased. I tracked down [2] and it seems to be written by a subject matter debater, yet also lacks references. Bro The Man (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you've resolved this with ComplexRational, but just to be clear: the additions were taken word-for-word from the sources I linked, so even if I could restore them to you (and I can't), you wouldn't find them any more useful than the sources themselves. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification! That was helpful, I appreciate your help :) Bro The Man (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • October 22–24 - Discussion phase
  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

[edit]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Clayton (attorney)

[edit]

Extraordinary Writ, it is nice to meet you. I noticed your participation in WP:Law and am asking for your assistance with a request I have posted on the Talk page for Jay Clayton (attorney). As I have a COI with Mr. Clayton, I can't modify the article myself. A different responding editor had some input about the references; he took issue with the exact wording of some of the content. I'd be willing to revise my suggested language based on your input and would implement directly if you approve. I appreciate your time and review. Looking forward to working with you to make these additions, Blackseneca (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blackseneca—thanks for following the rules on conflicts of interest. I don't generally deal with these myself, but if you add {{Edit COI}} to the top of your request, it will go into the queue and someone will eventually give you a decision on it. Before you do that, you'll want to address the concerns Drmies brought up. The wording one is straightforward (just change "serves as an advisor" to "is an advisor"), but the sourcing one is a bit trickier. Generally you'll be on the strongest ground if you can cite reliable news reports like Reuters; Coindesk isn't considered reliable, and some of the others are in more of a gray area. It's your choice how much to ask for, but requests that are short, simple, and supported by strong references are most likely to be approved quickly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Iacowriter (20:19, 28 October 2024)

[edit]

Hi. I guess some admin are mad at me because I don’t know how to round numbers. I need help on that. I was never taught that in school. --Iacowriter (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iacowriter. Suppose a film grossed $579,985,450 and we want to shorten it to millions. The number is between $579 million and $580 million, but which one is it closest to? It's much closer to $580 million, so that's the number we use in the infobox and the article. That's all rounding is, although you can look at this explanation if you want more information. Please let me know if you have other questions about this.
I'm sorry to see you've gotten so many warnings from other editors. The two things I would suggest are: 1) always write something in the edit summary field and 2) if someone undoes one of your edits, never restore it yourself. When someone says you've done something wrong, it's really important to make sure you understand what they're saying; if you don't understand, ask someone (like me!) for help before making similar edits. It's fine to make a mistake, but people will get frustrated if you keep making the same mistake over and over again. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, i’ve seen this before. The problem was that everybody was just giving me a hard time at school. I must’ve forgotten about this, and got very confused on stuff like this nowadays. Iacowriter (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Iacowriter (18:05, 29 October 2024)

[edit]

Hi. When I’m adding Of the box office is for Winnie the Pooh, Batman, and Spider-Man, did these films count to include?

The Blood and Honey movies

Captain America: Civil War

Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice

The Lego Movie

Lego Movie 2

Avengers: Infinity War

Avengers: Endgame

Justice League

Suicide Squad

Superpets

The Flash --Iacowriter (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iacowriter, for issues like these, Wikipedia articles try to follow the sources. If you're referring to the List of highest-grossing media franchises article, the box office figures there are mainly cited to entries on The Numbers, so you should just use their data rather than deciding yourself which films to count. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok… sorry… Iacowriter (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Hectorinaaa (04:49, 1 November 2024)

[edit]

how do I cite a certificate? --Hectorinaaa (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hectorinaaa. There are no specific requirements, so you should be fine if you just include the URL, the title of the document, the website where you found it, and anything else that seems relevant. As long as it's clear where the information came from, that's all that matters. By the way, since death certificates are primary sources, it's important to use them carefully: citing them for a birth/death date (like you're doing) is just fine, but for less straightforward claims, secondary sources are preferred. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Hectorinaaa (03:36, 2 November 2024)

[edit]

Is this article good? Isabelle Pinson --Hectorinaaa (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hectorinaaa. Very nice work: the article has everything it needs. If the sources say anything else about the style of her paintings or what made them distinctive, that might be worth adding...but the article is perfectly fine as it is. Keep up the good work! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Hectorinaaa (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BioGPT (21:26, 6 November 2024)

[edit]

Hello, I’d like to write some biographies and I was of that there’s a template I can follow. Please can you help to find that template ? --BioGPT (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BioGPT! This template may be what you're looking for: you can use it by copying {{subst:Biography}} onto a page and clicking "publish changes". (It gives some example sections to work with, but you'll probably want to remove some and add others.) Another option is to just find an article you like and copy its formatting, organization, etc. The Article Wizard will walk you through the process of creating a draft page where you can play around with things like this before you submit it for review. Let me know if you have any questions or run into any issues along the way. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gab Bois Studio (20:30, 7 November 2024)

[edit]

Hi !! I'm trying to find where the modifications I added went, and how I can keep working on them? --Gab Bois Studio (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gab Bois Studio: It looks like someone undid your changes, giving the reason "Unsourced, Narrative, external links in body of article". I know that can be frustrating. You can still access what you wrote at this link, but think about ways to address the concerns that were raised. Adding references is probably the most important thing you can do: if you click the button that says "Cite" while you're editing, it will help you add a citation in the right format. Also, keeping articles neutral is important, so words like "stunning", "clever", "instantly recognizable", "infamous", etc. can sometimes rub people the wrong way. I know that's a normal way to write about art, but on Wikipedia it's better to stick to "just the facts". Hopefully this helps...let me know if you have any questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Iacowriter (19:37, 7 November 2024)

[edit]

I said Spider-Man is now worth $26,664,582,784. What should I put for the actual number as I am trying to round it? Iacowriter (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iacowriter, the number is in between $26.6 billion and $26.7 billion, so those are your two possibilities. Which one is it closest to? It's closer to $26.7 billion, so that's your answer. Another way of thinking about it: in this example we're rounding to three digits, so look at the fourth digit. If that number is a 5 or greater, you round up to $26.7 billion; if it's a 4 or lower, you round down to $26.6 billion. In this case it's a 6, so we round up to $26.7 billion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wasn’t taught that much in school. Iacowriter (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RM at Talk:First Battle of Panipat

[edit]

Hi, given that I in particular refuted any argument for consistency, I am curious as to how you conclude: The consistency argument isn't so weak that I as a closer can disregard it. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella157, consistency is never the strongest argument out there, but the only way I could close that discussion as moved would be if I gave it zero weight, and that's not something I can do: it does have some basis in policy, and while you and SMcCandlish reasonably argued it shouldn't govern, ultimately others didn't agree. I don't think it's fair to say the opposers weren't making a WP:CONSISTENT argument; PadFoot, for instance, pretty clearly is. In another RM I might come down differently, but when this is combined with Amakuru's entirely separate concerns, I don't see how I could find a consensus here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru's entirely separate concerns are based on a superficial review of the ngram evidence - ie without considering context and that ngrams do not distinguish expected uses of title case (eg headings, captions and citations) versus usage in prose (what we need to consider) or that ngrams can often be contexturalised to give a better picture of usage in prose. This is something well established by the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines (per WP:RM) and explicitly stated in response to Amakuru. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I didn't say that all opposers weren't making an argument invoking WP:CONSISTENT though in truth, I may have misunderstood a comment made by Noorullah. However, what I said about the distinction between WP:CONSISTENT and WP:OTHERCONTENT is no less valid. Invoking a shortcut does not mean that the linked P&G reasonably applies and/or that the P&G has been reasonably construed (or misconstrued). One cannot simply take a presumed meaning of a shortcut word (consistent) as representing the P&G linked by the shortcut. The meaning is established by the linked text within the fuller context of the prevailing policy and supporting guidance. Furthermore, Padfoot makes an unsubstantiated assertion of an "informal convention" on Wikipedia to use "First Battle of ..." (with 'B' capitalised) - which is readily disproven by a search of WP. B is not always capitalised (for reasons of P&G) in the construction [ordinal] battle of X. There is no documented convention to capitalise battle and there is no inconsistency between WP:CRITERIA and WP:TITLEFORMAT. CONSISTENT applies to word patterns in title phrases. Asserting (through just citing the shortcut) that CONSISTENCY also extends to the capitalisation in a word pattern is a pettifogging argument that has been thoroughly rebutted. WP:NHC tells us that inappropriate arguments should be discarded. Alternatively, where an argument has negligible substance, it can be assigned negligible weight. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSISTENT (and WP:CRITERIA) is a broadly worded policy that says consistency is an important goal. It has no capitalization exception, at least not at WP:TITLEFORMAT (which covers "questions not covered by the five principles", of which consistency is one). I don't think you really disagree that if there were 999 properly capitalized titles and just one that fell a bit below the MOS:CAPS threshold, editors could properly consider consistency. This case isn't that drastic, but it's not nothing either, and with my closer hat on I don't have the power to say that the opposers are placing too much weight on consistency here. That said, this may be a moot point; if the RM at Talk:First battle of Öland (1564) isn't successful, the consistency argument would be considerably weaker in future RMs. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you. Per TITLEFORMAT, the use of sentence case is not covered [emphasis added] by CRITERIA - ie it falls outside CRITERIA. Note, CONSISTENT does not link to CRITERIA but to Wikipedia:Article titles#Consistency. Furthermore, while the statement at CRITERIA might be broad, it is explicitly narrowed at WP:TITLECON. Determining sentence case ultimately falls to MOS:CAPS. I would disagree with the 999:1 analogy as being an argument of WP:CONSISTENT. It assumes that the 999 are correctly capitalised and/or that all 1,000 are directly comparable rather than just somewhat similar (eg X in the Olympic G|games would be directly comparable but battles are not). This would be a argument of WP:FAITACCOMPLI and OTHERCONTENT but not a reasonable argument of CONSISTENT. The use of sentence case is a fundamental matter of WP style. Asserting that CONSISTENT might provide a loophole around this is clearly a contradiction to the spirit and intent and the written word of P&G. MOS:CAPS (through TITLEFORMAT) is RS based. Suggesting that CONSISTENCY reasonably overrides this creates multiple inconsistencies in P&G where none exist. It is inherently a pettifogging argument that should be discarded. Yes, it may be moot but, while it is appropriate to use an RM to address a [small] group of related articles, it is not appropriate for an RM to change policy by default. This is a matter that should be dealt with by an RfC. A result per the proposal will create contradictions between article titles and use in prose where MOS:CAPS undesputidly prevails. This RM has been used as a pretense to legitimise that RM. If nothing else, this dialogue helps coalesce my thoughts as a response there. If you don't already, you might watch WP:MR - but not about this move. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've at least identified the underlying issue here, which is whether MOS:CAPS necessarily trumps consistency or whether they're separate policy considerations that editors can at least sometimes balance against each other. I'm not persuaded that policy supports your answer (in letter or in spirit), but an RfC would certainly be one way to resolve the matter. And you're also welcome to take this closure to MR if you'd like, even just as a test case—you won't hurt my feelings :) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 65

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

  • Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
  • Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Flamewar at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions over BilledMammal. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Du-haeng

[edit]

Hi, thank you for your work as an admin and thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Du-haeng. I was wondering if you could change the closing decision from no consensus to keep. I think keep would be a fairer closure that's more representative of how the discussion went -- there were at least 6 participants and none of them except the nominator expressed any preference for a delete outcome while there were several arguments made to keep. The only delete view expressed was later retracted. I know it has little practical implication, but I think it could be useful down the line should someone try to re-nominate the article. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habst, it's definitely an edge case, but with only two people willing to !vote keep, I think it's a stretch to call it an outright consensus, particularly since several concerns about sigcov (e.g., from Geschichte) were still on the table. With no new participants after the last relist, no consensus is the best we can do here, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

[edit]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Question from Iacowriter (15:08, 13 November 2024)

[edit]

It says that the Smurfs is a $4 billion franchise. But I did research and it came out to $1208275432. --Iacowriter (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iacowriter, the $4 billion figure is cited to this 2008 Reuters article, which says "the business they have created in over 30 languages is put at some $4 billion". I don't really know how they calculated that figure (maybe it also includes comics, merchandise, television, and the like?), but it's best to follow the sources when they give a specific number like that.
By the way, I want to repeat that it's very important to leave an edit summary each time you make an edit. It doesn't have to be long—it just has to explain what you did in that edit, for example "updated Batman revenue numbers". People find it frustrating when there isn't an edit summary because it's harder to tell what changes were made. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry. Iacowriter (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I added the summary. Are we good now? Iacowriter (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you update numbers you should update the accessdate as well. Timur9008 (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Format fix at RRfA

[edit]

Thanks, beat me to it. The perils of editing by phone. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2024 (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.

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) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Extraordinary_Writ&oldid=1258297802"