Dispute resolution clause: By posting on my user talk page, you agree to resolve all disputes that may arise from your interactions with me through the dispute resolution processes offered within the Wikipedia Community. BD2412
I have removed your quotation to another section. It looked a bit awkward in the context you used it. Hope that you still like it. Best Condzio (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
As it stands, the draft is completely insufficient. It needs many more sources and a great deal of expansion. bd2412T 14:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I and Juuter is the same, however I forgotten a password and cannot log in - so any further change from this account is not possibe. I see that I caused confusion by making a duplicate, however I did not see a second version despite comment that it was created and my version vanished. Sorry.
Please do not be angry that I have changed your changes but you added some very loose statements about legal reasoning which doid not fit the article. I give you an exemplary list of good literature (in my opinion) which touches the subject directly and feel free to develope or change the article according to it. Unfortunattely I cannot devote more time to it (I added some refences and extended it a bit). Good luck.Condzio (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Cass R. Sunstein, Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict, Oxford University Press: New York 1996.
D. Neil MacCormick, Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning, Oxford University Press: Oxford 2005.
Edward H. Levi, The Nature of Judicial Reasoning. The University of Chicago Law Review, v. 32, 3/1965, pp. 395-409.
Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Harvard University Press: Cambridge 2009.
Robert Alexy, A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, translated by Ruth Adler and Neil MacCormick, Oxford University Press: Oxford 1989.
Ruggero J. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers. A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking, 1997.
You may try also Larry Alexander and Richard A. Posner.
I'm not upset, but I think those statements were useful to the draft. If it ever becomes an article, I will probably seek a consensus to include them. Cheers! bd2412T 04:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
That sounds fine, I will check up on it. Cheers! bd2412T 18:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I noticed you've done some work on AccessApps. I'm just letting you know that I've proposed that this article be deleted.CircleGirl (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I've done much in the way of work on it. I fixed some disambiguation links, and I have no opinion on the merits of the article. bd2412T 03:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't particularly understand why you closed the RM as no consensus, since it had been listed for over 2 weeks and no one had opposed or even indicated that it might not be a good idea. Per Wikipedia:Unopposed AFD discussion an unopposed WP:AFD should never be closed as "No consensus" or "Keep" but per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus there is "no minimum participation is required" thus the RM should clearly not have been closed as no consensus, since it was clearly unopposed. If you thought it should not have been moved, you could have commented in the discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't specifically recall my thinking at the time. I'll just relist the discussion to see what happens. bd2412T 11:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
BOZ (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, BOZ! bd2412T 16:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,
I hope you like almond paste (if you don't, all the more for me). Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Narky Blert (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks! bd2412T 00:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello BD2412: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctorTalk 07:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
This is the sixth newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.
(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)
You can already now try out the demo for a genealogy wiki at https://tools.wmflabs.org/genealogy/wiki/Main_Page and try out the functions. You will find parts of the 18th Pharao dynasty and other records submitted by the 7 first users, and it would be great if you would add some records.
And with those great news we want to wish you a creative New Year 2019!
Hello BD2412, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
You had closed this RM, however "Killing of.." is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME and less controversial. If these points had been correctly substantiated then the page would be titled as "Killing of Jamal Khashoggi". Would you object if I start an RM? I am asking mostly because the last request was not correctly substantiated by the participants and this a still a current event. Rzvas (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest waiting until the full month has passed since the closure of the previous discussion, which will be Friday. I would also request that if you intend to start a new discussion on the same subject, that you notify all participants in the previous discussion, and any appropriate WikiProjects. Cheers! bd2412T 20:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
BD2412, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I asked this before a long time ago but I'm not sure how to fix dab links with AWB, or do much other than fix typos: how are dab links fixed with AWB? Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
The middle tab on the menu under the preview screen (between "More" and "Skip") says "Disambig". If you put a disambiguation term there, like "English" and click "Load links", it will list all the links from the disambiguation page, and as you go through articles containing those links, a pop-up will appear and give you the option of replacing the link with one of those. You can also edit that box to remove unlikely things. If you are fairly confident that the links will all tend to go to the same place, you can use the same options as you would for fixing typos, for example having it always replace "[[English]] language" with "[[English language]]". bd2412T 21:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, I tried this with a couple of pages at WP:Disambiguation pages with links and can't get any to work, are the dab links already sorted? Made the list using "What links here", for the "Disambiguate" option entered the name of the dab page. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I've read some of this wrong and just reread it properly, will try now. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Do I remove all options from the ones that come up except the correct one in the "Disambig", then press Save? Think I've never even understood how to do that action until now. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
In the popup window using the "Disambig" tab, you should only be able to choose one option. bd2412T 21:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Think I've almost got it but can't find disambiguation pages with incoming links from articles, or otherwise am skipping them for some reason. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
At the moment, we are at an ebb of disambiguation pages with incoming links. If someone decides to disambiguate a page with many such links, there will be plenty to do. bd2412T 22:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I feel like I understand how to actually do this now after several years of using AWB (not sure how long): I appreciate your help and patience. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
This is not merely an exercise in counting heads. The strength of the policy argument favoring lowercase common nouns, as raised in the discussion, had to be taken into account. bd2412T 21:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Two days into your proposed move discussion of 2014 MU69, it's very clear that there is no consensus among the many, many editors who have commented on it. I've gone ahead and requested a closure, if it is possible. I am just informing you of this. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 00:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Edit: It's best to leave it open for all seven days unless you wish to retract it. If you wish to retract as no consensus, it's up to you. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I see no reason to treat this discussion any differently from every other move request. A great many requests appear to have a clear direction (or lack of direction) after the first few days, but we let them run the full seven days. bd2412T 02:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The recent moves of political campaign articles has left the peer review boxes on the talk page showing a redlink. See for example Talk:William McKinley 1896 presidential campaign. What can be done about this?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
There are two ways to address this. One would be to move all the peer review pages, and the other would be to create redirects to them. Either one would require that someone compile a list of the links that are now broken. If someone makes such a list, I'll be glad to move the pages. bd2412T 12:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I really don't have the time, and as the admin who spent the time moving the pages, are you leaving this for others?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I moved a relative handful of these pages - a few hundred out of tens of thousands that were moved as part of a larger project. bd2412T 12:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I did not mean to suggest you should fix them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, and I will fix the ones in the election articles I've worked on. Do you advise redirect or actual moves? Thanks for your understanding here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I would advise moving the peer review page, so that the association with that page and the current title of the reviewed page is immediately clear. bd2412T 23:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Awesome job writing the new Surname Index Article page. Thanks for taking the initiative to provide guidance. Coastside (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! It's a start. bd2412T 02:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
My inclination would be to think that Water well is actually the primary topic of the term, well. bd2412T 22:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I would agree that, out of the structures, only water well would normally be called just "well". The only other common use I can think of it the adverb and adjective that we probably can't assign an article to. I suppose we could look at making "Well" redirect to Water well (or maybe move that to Well where it was until 2005) pending a broad concept article. On the Well DAB page, apart from the structures, the other uses of "Well" are a few small places and a few "arts" topics that probably wouldn't be expected to be at the base name. Likewise for the Wells DAB we could just link to Water well and have the singular DAB page in the see also. Interestingly while Wells, Maine has nearly as many people as Wells, Somerset, the Somerset one gets many more views. However Water well gets over double [[1]] but it seems that there is still no PT for the plural. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I think we get around that by tweaking the lede to Water well to indicate that a well is dug to reach liquid resources, most commonly for water. Then we can have a paragraph in the body about wells for things other than water, and presto!, dabconcept. bd2412T 17:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you think its sensible to start a RM to move the DAB to Wells (disambiguation)? so that "Well" can redirect to "Water well" until we've completed the additions, or just make a RM to move Water well to Well once we've done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It would be a multi-move, but I would just make it for both - Water well to Well with the assurance that we would then tweak "Water well" to note the existence of other kinds of wells for either obtaining or warehousing liquid resources, and Well to Well (disambiguation). bd2412T 18:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Should I make that multi-move request now or wait for the article to be developed? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I would go ahead with the request now. bd2412T 19:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Need I say more? To be clear, One could start with bad habits and never achieve greatness, likewise, by following the lead of lesser individuals, never find the right path. I choose greatness, but fear the paths mislead, yet settling for mediocre is not an option. An autodidact by nature makes for a long tedious road and impatience lends itself to failure. Avoiding verbosity, I seek wisdom, my edits are a direct result from desire to learn, and many are the times that what I read need help in ways beyond my talent. I can smell sincerity, and would lie by your fireplace in the hopes of finding kindness and perhaps a few morsels of knowledge. Suijur,sui juris 13:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not have a fireplace. All the rest sounds good, though. bd2412T 14:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Do I really have to show you the official IAU and MPC guidelines for naming minor planets to demonstrate that Ultima Thule cannot be the official name? Jeez... ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 02:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
My impression is that these rules can be broken. It is also entirely possible that a different official name will be announced, and the world will continue calling it Ultima Thule - as they already are now. bd2412T 02:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The IAU is rather strict with these guidelines. Official names have been rejected and changed. For example, Haumea's discoverer wanted to call it Ataecina, and that did not fit the guidelines. The other discoverer of Haumea (it's a complicated story...) chose Haumea, and that matched the guidelines and was approved. Eris was also not named Xena for the same reason. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 02:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I must also cite that before August 2006, when Eris (the most massive dwarf planet) was on everyone's minds, almost everyone called the object Xena, and the Wikipedia page was almost moved to it, starting an edit war. In September, the object was named Eris, and Xena became a historical footnote. I think that something similar is almost guaranteed to happen with MU69. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 02:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with moving it to Ultima Thule until such a thing happens. It's silly for virtually everyone else in the world but us to be calling it that. bd2412T 02:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
But why does everyone call it that? The media. The media avoid these designations like the plague because they're not easy to remember - exoplanets, asteroids, and stars to name a few. I see nothing wrong with a redirect to the topic so that people looking for Ultima Thule will be redirected to the right page. Also, if we move it to Ultima Thule, we'll need to move it again when the official name is declared, essentially wasting a move. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 02:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It isn't wasting a move if it reflects the common name for the time being. There are plenty of instances where a page title gets moved a second time after a further change in the situation - for example, United States House of Representatives v. Azar, which changed in name every time the Secretary of Health is changed, because they are the party technically being sued. So what if it changes again in the future? It should presently be at the title that is the common name now. bd2412T 02:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Excellent refutation, but I still disagree. I think you are comparing apples and oranges. How is the title of a court case set to the same standards as the title for an astronomical object? Astronomical objects have very standard designations, and my opinion is to keep as close to these designations as possible, even if the name in common usage may differ. If this was an article on a species, I might see your argument, but I fail to see how such a designation could be of any help to those wanting to look up "Ultima Thule" in a database by the MPC, JPL, or IAU, and wondering why it doesn't show up because they needed to type "2014 MU69". ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 02:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The technical title would continue to redirect to the common name, as is usually the case. bd2412T 02:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Technical title? These are provisional designations, and they're called that for a reason. Just a minor correction. As far as I can tell, if you eliminate the two factors of the public (who also inputted Ultima Thule for use by the New Horizons team) and the press, then 2014 MU69 would be the common name unambiguously, like any other astronomical object. I'd also like your opinion if Eris (2003 UB313) still wasn't named and everyone was referring to it by "Xena", as was the case in August 2006, yet the provisional name was 2003 UB313. There are parallels. 2003 UB313/2014 MU69, Xena/Ultima Thule, and Eris/??? (not announced) ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 02:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
If you "eliminate the two factors of the public and the press", then you're no longer talking about titling appropriate for a general purpose encyclopedia. bd2412T 02:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Counterargument: 2019 AQ3, an article I started, does not have the public or the press going for it as much as 2014 MU69. And yet it has an encyclopedia article. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 02:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
That isn't a counterargument. It isn't relevant at all. A thing can be notable without having a common name. bd2412T 03:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The argument from bringing up 2019 AQ3 is the title of the 2014 MU69 article (and demonstrating that this one is at the provisional name, not a nickname). A thing can be notable, even barely, and not have a common name. Asteroids, species, stars, you name it. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 03:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
This is true, but irrelevant, because Ultima Thule has a common name, as defined by its usage by the public and in the press, which is where we look to determine common names. bd2412T 03:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
And that is incorrect because astronomical objects DO NOT HAVE COMMON NAMES. They have unofficial nicknames (like MU69's case), which can be the common name, or official IAU-approved names (like Eris's case). One is not the other. We must be careful not to confuse the two senses of the term as both "common names". ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 03:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense, bordering on gibberish. We know it has a common name because the media aren't all calling it the same thing by coincidence. bd2412T 03:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The common name is the nickname assigned to it by the public and the New Horizons team. Did it go through the official IAU naming process? No. So it should be treated differently. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 03:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey there. Thanks for your closing of the discussion at Talk:List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials. The proposing editor thus had no consensus to move or split the article to List of Doctor Who specials. (The discussion was named as a move, but was proposed as a move and merge/create) Not long after, the proposing editor created the article nevertheless, and only after creating it did he begin an almost-duplicate discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who. What are your thoughts on this? Cheers. -- /Alex/21 06:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I have moved the article to the draftspace while any further discussions continue. -- /Alex/21 06:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
As per the Disambiguation Dos and Don'ts, editors are not supposed to "include every article containing the title." The template basically guides editors to do just that.
On a separate note, I would also appreciate your input on the draft proposal for name pages. It's an evolved how-to guide from the original guide you wrote on surname index articles. I think it will be a helpful guide for people who have a hard time interpreting the various policies and practices for name pages.
Coastside (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I've looked through 100+ links to common chimpanzee that seemed most questionable. I changed a handful to Pan (genus) but the vast majority are either clearly for the species or a vague statement that could apply to either (basically: "some apes are chimpanzees"). As for the destination of Chimpanzee, evidence and opinions added after we !voted are making the PT look more marginal. The title will pick up incoming links for the genus, and a dab would help us to help readers by finding them. I am starting to wonder whether we risk missing another New York opportunity here. Certes (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. LizRead!Talk! 01:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Resolved, thanks. bd2412T 02:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:DABCOMPROD. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:DABCOMPROD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for closing this, but would you mind re-opening the discussion, or closing it in a different direction? It's mostly my fault for leaving an unclear !vote, but it's obvious that I could not both support #2 and oppose #5 on the RM list. My rationale should have made it clear that I also opposed #2. And the IP also expressed qualms about combining the name variants, only explicitly supporting the Karl Zimmermann (shooter) move. So would you please either reopen, or close with consensus as to 1, 3, 4 and no consensus on 2, 5 (or something along those lines). I'd be happy to adjust my !vote if you think that's necessary or helpful. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a consensus for the moves as proposed irrespective of your specific issues with two of the names. bd2412T 17:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
How so? If you take away my mistaken !vote for move #2, then you only have one editor in favor for #2 and #5 - Station1. The IP was not clearly in favor, and neither was I. Even adding in the nom as a !support, that doesn't seem to add to consensus for those two. Dohn joe (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The IP's preceding comment appeared to favor all the proposed moves. The proposal is not to have three separate disambiguation pages, but for the proposition that the differences between "Carl" and "Karl", and "Zimmerman" and "Zimmermann" were inconsequential enough to merit a single disambiguation page for all variations. If there is consensus for that proposition, I see no basis for using a different frame of reference for any one variation within the grouping. bd2412T 18:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, it just seemed to me that the IP made an ambivalent comment ("makes some sense", but "how far do we go") - but only actually !voted on one of the proposed moves. I'd still say there's no consensus on #2 on #5. Dohn joe (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think they can be separated out like that. Either the principle governs, that the differences between these names are too insignificant to be distinguishing, or it does not. bd2412T 19:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
A quick note that I briefly mentioned our earlier discussion in the first paragraph of an article I wrote for Slate that published today. The piece is about Wikipedia and the medical profession, but I was interested in the legal connection as well. Thanks again for the information. Best regards, Stephenbharrison (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. As it happens, I have received some awards for being one of the top several-hundred editors of medical articles - but my work on this is almost entirely structural, including making/fixing links. Cheers! bd2412T 00:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
On 29 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rivalry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that rivalries encourage people to take more risks and behave less ethically? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rivalry. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rivalry), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
What space on the internet is our speech truly free, as you suggest that there may be area where this is possible. I wouldn't leave a cliffhanger like that, because it gets folks like me very curious. Wire613 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done I don't know what this is supposed to be, but it is not an actionable edit request. — xaosfluxTalk 02:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
_Alt.png)
