User talk:Moonlight Entm

Friendly message

Hi. I hope you don't mind this friendly message but I was reading a few of you're replies about the bad experiences you had with some editors on here and the insults they said to you. I wanted to reach out and say I've had similar experiences before so I hope you don't allow a few bad people ruin your experiences on here. I just wanted to send a bit of positivity your way! Escmix (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, you're so nice don't worry, i always try to put out content with reliability but there's always some editor trying to insult or revert it simply because they don't agree with, i feel like wikipedia has some sort of biasedness and hate when it comes to certain artists, i've experienced this a lot in wikipedia, i don't let that affect me cause i've already have even harder problems in my personal life, i am a victim of bullying, difamation and a lot of other stuff, writing is the only thing that makes me feel better these days, it was so nice of you to come and tell me this cause i really need it and i thought nobody will ever have sympathy to me, you're awesome, have a great day and thank you so much, i wish you the same, Blessings!. Moonlight Entm (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Forbes source

I already linked to you why it was unreliable in the first place. Don't just revert my edit when you clearly don't understand what you're reverting. The only reason the Forbes source is not reliable is due to the fact it was written by a Contributor. WP:FORBESCON states: "Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor", and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites". See also: Forbes." Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 00:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You're definitely so confused or straight up acting silly which doesn't surprise me for a wiki editor, i am referring to the website Forbes not forbescon, they are two different websites, Forbes the one i used is verified by wikipedia as a reliable source stating the later

Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. - WP Reliable/Pennerial Sources. Moonlight Entm (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what I told you. Forbes is just one website. A contributor is someone who writes the article. If you view that article, you will see "Jeff Benjamin Senior Contributor" which isn't reliable. It's self-explanatory. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 04:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Forbes itself is reliable, but it depends on who writes the article. If it directly says written by Forbes staff it can be used, but it it mentions a contributor it can't be used. You can ask any editor on here, and they will tell you the same thing. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 04:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if you know this but Jeff Benjamin is a seniour contributor of Forbes, he's part of the staff and a top notch writer of some of the most reliable sources on the web, and no that's a lie, wikipedia never says one writer specifically can't be considered reliable or not, they only say that about the websites, you're straight up inventing that cause i've read the whole guide and writers have nothing to do with reliable sources. Moonlight Entm (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I'm Girth Summit, an administrator here. Your understanding is incorrect. Forbes hosts articles written by all sorts of people. The ones written by the staff are clearly labelled, and the consensus here is that they are generally reliable, but the consensus is that articles written by 'contributors', including 'senior contributors', are not generally reliable. Either way, you shouldn't be edit warring to reinstate content which has been challenged, you should discuss it and gain consensus on the talk page. Will you undertake to stop doing this? Girth Summit _(blether) 08:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

In all of the WP sources guides i've read, i have never heard that, i thought they meant that seniour contributors/writers to the website could be included not to mention that he was also confused, he thought the source i've provided was. Forbescon when it was Forbes, anyways thanks for letting me know and i"ll try to search for a better source to add the content. Moonlight Entm (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:FORBESCON isn't a website, it's our internal link to the guidance about the consensus I'm talking about. If you'd clicked on it, and read what was there, you'd have known that. This is beside the point however: what I'm looking for from you is an undertaking not to engage in edit warring just because you think the other person is wrong. If you add sonething, and someone else removes it, you need to go to the talk page, discuss and get agreement before reinstating. Do you agree to that? Girth Summit _(blether) 22:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you actually read my comment? I clearly stated "He thought i used Forbescon as a source", i never said that Forbescon was a reliable source, i am very well aware that it's not, i clearly wrote that i used "Forbes" which is not the same as "Forbescon" if you want to stick by the other user's side at least do not invent or accuse me of things i did not do, cause that violates WP rules, the ones that you had the audacity to quote me on. Moonlight Entm (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You don't appear to be getting the point. There is no "Forbescon" website. There is Forbes. Contributors and staff write for Forbes. We do not accept contributor pieces which appear on Forbes.com. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The other editor did not say that you used a 'Forbescom' website, he pointed you towards the same guidelines about Forbes contributors that I just have. Again, this is beside the point. This is the last time I am going to make this point: do you accept that your edit warring on that page was inappropriate, and undertake not to behave like that again, even if you think you are right? If you're not willing to do that, I will have to assume that you are unwilling to read and/or abide by our edit warring guidance. Please address this point in your next post. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 06:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring and making personal attacks..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit _(blether) 17:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I had hoped that you would respond to my questions above in a way that indicated that you had taken time to actually read the edit warring policy, and that you agree to abide by it in future. You have not done that, and I see that you have continued editing elsewhere, so I am blocking your account. For clarity (and for the benefit of any admin reviewing any unblock request): at Le Sserafim on 15/16 August, you went past WP:3RR, only a couple of weeks after your last block for edit warring. To make matters worse, the edit summary here includes a personal attack. The discussion I had with you above, in which you seem unable to follow a link and read the text there, makes me question whether you have the required competence to edit here. If you want to continue editing here, I strongly suggest that you read through the links I gave you above, and read WP:GAB, and make an unblock request that will convince the reviewing admin that you understand what edit warring is, why it is disruptive, and how you will avoid doing it again in future, and also you make it clear that you will refrain from making personal attacks in future. Any admin who is convinced that you are capable of editing constructively may unblock you without consulting me. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 17:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The reason why i haven't reply you was because i have life and i was busy, those edits i made were in a hurry, i don't need to read wikipedia rules cause i've read/seen/learned them all, i know how them work and i've always discussed here in the most polite way ever and have always provided my points with actual evidence and consensus, on other hand there are editors that have called me bitch and use inappropriate language while discussing with me, yet there everywhere being defended by editors like you, its not a personal attack, the truth is never a personal attack, i stated a fact that i've seen here with my eyes and you just did it, you could have actually let me know what was wrong or right without accusing me of doing something that i never did or wrote, how do you expect me to react? I simply defended myself and you're simply abusing of your power to make me look bad, i have enough competence to edit here netherless to say i have seriously lost any hope in wikipedia, this website is full of biased people who want to glorify their opinions above others, if you would have actually try to read and understand my points and see the other editors comments then you"'ll understand that he indeed said that i used Forbescon and even provided the Forbescon source information in his reply, he did everything i acussed him of and my edit wasn't a sin or vandalism either less it was disruptive, i was literally in my way to become an advanced editor, and then you come and block me just because i didn't reply you in the time that you wanted and because of a misunderstanding that the other editor did and started a whole war, when he could have easily just fix it himself, and of course i am the one that was edit warring for defending my point against people that do not agree with me but have one thing that i don't have that is an advantage as an editor here of course i understand that i"ll ended up loosing, and every little single thing i have contributed here was just a lack of time, few admins in wikipedia knows how to objective and go deep dive inside the conflictions, and sorry if i am accusing you of something that you are not but that's what you showed and what you did to me. Moonlight Entm (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

In this interests of WP:ADMINACCT, I'm going to respond to your points above. This has got nothing to do with bias, or with me wanting to glorify my opinions - I have no opinion at all about the article this edit war centred around, I have never heard of the subject of the article and have no interest in that genre of music. I am acting as an uninvolved administrator, responding to a complaint of edit warring. To address the points you raised above:

• i don't need to read wikipedia rules cause i've read/seen/learned them all, i know how them work In my view, this is not correct. You seem still unaware of our rules about edit warring and personal attacks, despite having been blocked for edit warring earlier this month. You were both edit warring, which is less than ideal and I have cautioned the other editor, but in your case you breached WP:3RR, you have just come off a block for the same thing. I might have blocked your account without further warning to prevent a recurrence, but I gave you a chance to acknowledge that your actions were inappropriate and to undertake not to repeat them; you continued editing without addressing these points, hence why you are now blocked.
• its not a personal attack To call another editor "a joke" is undeniably a personal attack. If you had read WP:NPA you would know that. It's not profane, but it is insulting, and unacceptable. Nor is it acceptable for you to have been called a bitch - I don't know who called you that, but if I become aware of instances of editors using language like that to their colleagues, I will certainly block them. In this particular instance however, I did not see that person you were edit warring with had insulted you in any way.
• he indeed said that i used Forbescon and even provided the Forbescon source information in his reply Perhaps there is a language barrier here? Multiple attempts have been made to explain this to you, but it appears that you still don't understand what the other editor was saying. Nobody said anywhere that you added a source called Forbescon; you were given a link to WP:FORBESCON, and if you had clicked on it and read what it said, you should have understood the difference between Forbes articles written by their staff, and articles written by contributors. This apparent inability to understand what people are saying, and your willingness to just revert and insult people rather than read and understand the links they have given you, is what makes me question your competence to edit here.

You remain at liberty to make an unblock request, but you will need to satisfy us that you are willing to improve how you have been acting, rather than blaming everyone else for this situation. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 12:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to informate yourself properly before blocking me, i was blocked 1 month ago because i made an edit that linked to disambiguation pages which was a mistake that i did not notice or realize it when i was going to fix it i was already blocked because of it, the admin thought it was vandalism and blocked me for 2 weeks because of that, i told him that it was a simple error that would not happen again, i was never blocked because of edit warring, i have created and made huge contributions in a lot of pages, i totally understand what he wanted to tell me with the source thing, but he did tell me multiple times that i used Forbescon as a source not only here, also in the page where i made the edit, he linked here the Forbescon:WP saying why it shouldn't be used as a source like if i used it, he was quoting me on something that i never did, he was wrong and confused, when i told him that i used Forbes and not Forbescon and that they were too different websites, and even provided him what the WP:Reliable/Perennial sources article says about Forbes and that it is verified, he said to me that WP only accepts Forbes articles that are written by the staff which is something that i know and i continued to reply him that the article was written by Jeff Benjamin who is a senior editor of Forbes and it is pretty much a Staff of the website, he still didn't get the point, you say that cause that's what he wrote here because you haven't seen his other replies in the page where everything started and is also mentioned here so i don't know why you haven't addressed it yet and you keep on saying that he never said that because he did say it and that was what bothered me, it's not that i refrain to hear what other editors have to say or that i have insult to them cause that's not truth i have never insulted any editor here, i've always discussed kindly, it was that you two were accusing me of something that i never did and i was trying to defend myself and in top of that you blocked me unfairly, and i am still surprised how you haven't get the point yet, why you are refusing to understand that it was a misunderstood cause the evidence is here, read the comments above properly, i recognized that it was my mistake to say "a joke" cause i couldn't believe that he was still not understanding despite me explaining it to him a lot of times. Moonlight Entm (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that the block was originally imposed for vandalism rather, but your unblock request was declined because the reviewing admin observed that you had been edit warring and pushing dubious sources. The original reason given in the block log is a technicality that does not help your case here: you were originally blocked for vandalism, but you remained blocked because of the edit warring.

It is good that you have acknowledged that calling someone a joke was a mistake, but I don't understand how, in the same post, you also say i have never insulted any editor here. To call someone a joke is to insult them, and it is not permitted. I probably wouldn't have blocked you for that on its own, but it makes the edit warring issue worse.

With regards to Forbes staff versus contributors, one cannot be 'pretty much staff': either one is staff, or a contributor ('senior' or otherwise). If you are staff, your work is written on behalf of Forbes, subject to editorial review, and fact-checked. If you are a contributor, you can write whatever you like, and it doesn't get reviewed by the editorial team. Jeff Benjamin is a contributor - it's there in his byline, and there is even a little disclaimer (hover your cursor over the little circle with the letter 'i' in it) that reads "Opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own". His work might be great, but it might not, which is why we say that sources like that are not generally reliable, along the lines of self-published blogs.

Now, I have looked at the comments above, I have read the edit summaries you both used when reverting each other, and I have looked on the article talk page (which is where you should have made the case for including the content, rather than reinstating it after it was reverted). Nothing I have seen looks like somebody saying you have used a source called Forbescon, it is all about Forbes.com contributors. I conclude that you are either unwilling to read what people actually write and simply jump to conclusions, or that you lack the proficiency in the English language to understand what people are saying to you - hence my doubts about your competence. Perhaps I am wrong however - if you are still sure that the other editor accused you of using Forbescon as a source multiple times, please provide some diffs showing where they did that. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

He linked to me the Forbescon WP, if you look at the article of WP:Reliable/Pennerial sources, there's two Forbes websites, the one i used was the one verified as a reliable the official website for Forbes, see the messages and you"ll see he even provided the information regarding the reliability of Forbes.com Contributors, they are two different websites and things, he was indeed confused and thought i used ForbesCon, here is what each source information says, if you look at my talk page with him you"'ll see it.

Forbes - Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. WP:FORBES

Forbescon - Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor", and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites". WP:FORBESCON

What's i wrong? Yes, what's he wrong? Yes too, i've perfectly understood what him and you were trying to tell me and i have enough competence to edit oe read, if i wouldn't have read all of your messages then i would have never be acting like this, neither of you have understand my point, and for more that i try to explain that i did not used Forbescon, you keep on denying it and saying that i refuse to read or understand editors properly which is not true, i changed the sources of the edit cause i realized i was wrong in using PopSugar cause it was still not verified as a reliable but kept the Forbes source cause Forbes was verified as a reliable, then when i realized that Jeff Benjamin was not a Forbes staff (but he was still not part of Forbescon anyways, he's something important of Forbes website), i was about to remove it but someone have already done it, and i didn't revert it, did you see it anywhere that i reverted it? do you think that if i would have really wanted to stay in the wrong i would have put the Forbes source again?, this seems to me like a real misunderstanding, i was wrong, left him win and did not edit or revert again, and that's when you came and send me this messages claiming that i did something that i clearly did not with exception of the "a joke" insult which i indeed said, however it was because i was so frustrated and bothered cause he kept reverting and i couldn't see why he was doing it cause i was right in my eyes and in my WP knowledge, i did missed and forgot somethings, cause everything i did was in a hurry, and did not have that much time to discuss properly, when i realized i was wrong i just leave it like that, maybe i should have explain it to him what really happened more detailed and i fail to cause i didn't have time but i thought it wouldn't have really caused nothing cause it was a simply misunderstood and any editor would have understand hence i was wrong if you still believe i am the villain and that i deserve this unfair block then okay but i hope you're giving the same energy to everyone not just me, there's an user who vandalizes WP everytime and does way worse things (cause i haven't really done major things here) and is still out there happily editing, if you would have actually asked me or see those edits warring that i was into it you"ll see that i've been given the reason cause none of them were my fault, hence why i was unblocked.

Moonlight Entm (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this trolling or what? There is not a website called Forbes.com Contributors/ForbesCon. Nobody has told you there is a website called Forbes.com Contributors/ForbesCon. Everybody has told you there is not a website called Forbes.com Contributors/ForbesCon. You are wrong. Incorrect. Outrageously mistaken to the point it looks like trolling. If you think there is a second Forbes website (demonstrating your block should remain in place due to WP:CIR), then please, by all means, prove everybody wrong and show us a link to this second Forbes website (you're so adamant it exists that you must have surely visited this mysterious website that literally nobody told you existed). – ².O.^Boxing 07:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh now i see, i was confused myself cause i couldn't see why WP:Reliable/Pennerial Sources have two websites regarding Forbes, one was separated for the contributors, but here's the thing i did not know cause that was not the way i was educated in WP, what i've learned is that every prestigious website like Forbes or Billboard is considered reliable, specially since all of those websites that are considered reliable have contributors, so that's why i thought they were two different websites, cause it makes no sense how Forbes is considered unreliable for having contributors but others like Billboard are not, cause every website has contributors, that's why i thought they were two different websites, what i understood in the information provided is that they talk of Forbescon as if it was a completely different website at all, like if is not Forbes, and the fact that they are marked as red(unreliable) and green(reliable) made me believe even more that they were two different websites, it was my mistake for interpreting it like that and i recognize it, you're totally right Forbescon website doesn't exists but for me they were completely different sources till now, i apologize. Moonlight Entm (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I literally explained it to you TWICE. As did many other editors. If you are unable to comprehend that, I don't see how you can possibly edit here. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course that i am able to comprehend that, why you just can't see that it was a clear misunderstanding, it was a confusion from both parts, i'm totally capable to edit here, i invite you to see my catalog and how much i've contributed, why you want to cruficy me for a human mistake? Moonlight Entm (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• This WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior regarding Forbes certainly gives me the impression of trolling by this editor. At this point in this editor's career, it's either competence or malice. My first experience with this editor was in June when I felt compelled to protect a page in order to get editors to discuss on the relevant talk page instead of in edit summary. The header I put atop my first communication with this editor was "You are about to be blocked", their reply blamed everyone but themselves. Several blocks by several editors later, the editor still fails to accept the adult consequences of their frequent misdeeds. BusterD (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Did you not read my replies above this? I've only gotten one block because of a mistake, in fact i did not know and thought they were two different websites otherwise i would have never been here debating it, i already accepted my error and apologized it, did you fail to see it? Only because of your convienece? Competence and Malice? You're definitely talking about another use/account cause i have in fact never in my life insulted any editor in WP, they come at me insulting for the edits that i do instead of explaining a proper reason why they disagree, i've been called bitch hundred of times, you can read my whole talk page history and you"ll see it yourself, only two or three messages were sent to me for doing something wrong however they were between the time i created this account and i was not so educated on it and nor i was a great editor. Moonlight Entm (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Moonlight Entm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was recently blocked because of a misunderstanding that i've already cleared and i have offered my sincere apology for the confusion, before an editor i am a human, and it was completely normal me not realizing it and getting carried away, i am 100% sure of my abilities to edit and its based on my contributions with exception of my first years when i was of course not that experienced as an editor,please understand the position i was in because of my error and how it its unfair to block me for that.

Decline reason:

This is all but incoherent and does not help with the concerns over your competence. Yamla (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was just explaining why i got blocked please see my contributions and you"ll see my editing competence. Moonlight Entm (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I put the block template here cause i can't edit in my talk page due to the block. Moonlight Entm (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Moonlight Entm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was recently blocked because of a misunderstanding but the most unfair thing is that the block didn't even have a set date to expire, i invite every admin to see my contributions and my visions here and to please understand the situations i was put in, my editing competence has always been high but i am human so i can't evit mistakes, you can put me to do a work if you want to and i"ll do it inmediately if my contributions are not enough.

Decline reason:

Sorry, but after reading through your talk page, which was really tedious, I don't see how you can edit English Wikipedia. You are going to be too much of a time drain here as people attempt (and fail) to get you to understand simple concepts and attempt (and fail) to get you to read rules pages. Please edit the version of Wikipedia in your native language. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

BusterD (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karina (South Korean singer) (September 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Karina (South Korean singer) 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Moonlight Entm! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)