User talk:Dilpreet Singh

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Dilpreet Singh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Shovon (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dilpreet Singh. You have new messages at Shovon76's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

I took a look at your edits and the reverts and have the following comments to make. Generally, wikipedia prefers an encyclopedic tone to articles, which means that the language should be neutral ('killed' rather than 'Martyr'), statements should be backed up by reliable sources that are distant from the subject (primary sources such as the damdamitaksal website are discouraged, and statements such as 'He spread the original values of Sikhism and persuaded people young and old to follow the original rules and tenets of the religion.For this he had travel all around the Indian' need proper attribution). Finally, external links should be informative and balanced, the ones you've added (on the face of it) don't appear to satisfy that criterion.

If you believe that the article is biased, I suggest you do the following:

Undo your own changes to the article. That will demonstrate your good faith and will make it easier for you to make changes to the article.
Make specific suggestions on the talk page rather than making a wholesale change to the article.

--RegentsPark (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. If you want to make the article neutral, that is not the way to do it. Please follow the rules, as I do not want to see another fellow Sikh editor blocked. Sikh-History 17:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

Dear Fellow Editor, please start discussions on the articles talk pages, not on my talk page. Thanks and Happy Editing Thanks --Sikh-History 21:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dilpreet we should add bit more of information on this along with the amendments to the present...as its kinda very fast way of information on WEB.. ( Sarabjeer Singh) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.104.53 (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up

Thanks for joining wikipedia. I have seen some of your edits, keep it up. Let me know if you need any help with wikipedia policies. You might come across across un-necessary warnings to make you run away.... just read wikipedia policies well... so that you know about your rights in wikipeda and about all the levels where you can go to challenge others --DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Baba Kharak Singh

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Baba Kharak Singh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —SpacemanSpiff 05:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well looks like article is deleted already , as no article with name Baba Kharak Singh exists SO need to create again

 --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Your recent editing history at Flag of India shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —SpacemanSpiff 17:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this what You supposed to do, before making the change discuss on the talk page --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facing Biased behaviour of other editor's

{{admin help}} Please help in article ,Flag of India , talk [[1]] , I am editing where I faced Ignorance and biased-ness of other's. even after producing the real documents. --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are not referees in content disputes. I will, however, offer an editorial comment. You are not being beset by "Ignorance and biased-ness of others", you are faced with a consensus that does not match your vision of reality. This can be a frustrating experience, please try to maintain your perspective in the discussion. Referring to other editors in a disparaging manner is counterproductive and will not serve you well. I will leave your template live so other opinion may be forthcoming. Regards Tiderolls 00:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your message :) --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Tide rolls, and I have turned off the "adminhelp". On questions of content, Wikipedia operates by WP:Consensus, and administrators have no more say in content disputes than other editors. If you are unable to reach consensus by discussion on the article talk page, there are WP:Dispute resolution processes, but when consensus is clearly against you, it may be best to let it go and drop the stick. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well atleast it is not against however discussion reach at point where other editor (concern)has no comments as original(primary) writings proves secondary as false. since then editor has not respond rather insisting other at back to shape case differently --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PRIMARY. When secondary sources exist, we do not usually use primary sources as they involve original research. You really do need to drop this campaign/understand consensus and you have been told this by many very experienced editors, including the two above who have had no involvement in the content dispute. This is not a situation where you are likely to succeed in imposing your fringe theory and if you persist in it - and the creation of POV forks etc - then you could end up being blocked for tendentious editing or disruption. - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

worth reading, How about the secondary resource, GD tendulkar ? Dr. Sangat singh (widely accepted in our minority) who atleast match with the WP:OR. not spread the rumor or false allegation as other resource.--Dilpreet Singh (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and those Primary resource are published with the title "The Collected work of Gandhi" [2] by publication division. --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Hello, Dilpreet Singh. You have new messages at Talk:Flag committee.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiderolls 04:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flag committee listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Flag committee. Since you had some involvement with the Flag committee redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You I input in the redirect discussion --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and quotations

A few days ago you asked a question about copyright and quotations. What is allowable is explained at WP:Quotations. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Dilpreet Singh/Shaheed Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Dilpreet Singh/Shaheed Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smspublications/SantJarnailSingh.pdf. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User page protection

It appears that your user page was being hijacked for the profile of someone else and seeing as you reverted it but the problem continues, I have semi-protected it for a while and IPs or new editors can not change it. If you wish to have the protection removed, let me know or you can also request at WP:RFPP. —SpacemanSpiff 12:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you.. I saw the resolution and we need further steps to fix that. Dilpreet Singh ping 01:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilpreet Singh The dispute resolution request that I filed was closed for bureaucratic reasons. An IP did submit Baaz News to the reliable sources noticeboard, where it is currently being discussed if it is reliable or not by uninvolved users. I’m planning on submitting some other sources there beforehand tomorrow so the pro-Indian government narrative camp on the article cannot accuse them of being unreliable willy-nilly without due cause or valid reasoning. Thank you a lot for your help in making sure Wikipedia remains a fair, just, logical, and balanced encyclopedia that does not succumb to the influence of state-backed narratives. ThethPunjabi (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

most of the current sources who are reporting on Amrtipal Singh are running state narrative and sources who are reporting internationally are merely picking up from them. we need a balance to stop state narrative. Dilpreet Singh ping 14:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Want to bring this to your attention

Hello Dilpreet, please see the reply under this post which concerns you here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Amritpal_Singh_(activist)#A_suggestion_from_an_outsider

I want to bring it to your attention so you have a chance to defend yourself fairly from the accusations that user is making against you. Cheers and good-luck, ThethPunjabi (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you.. Dilpreet Singh ping 17:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist). Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message.. If you can point out where I had not good faith while interacting with others would help me and I would expect a equal from others. talk page for amritpal singh filled with pro-hindutva lobby and should have a balance and equal access for sikhs, which doens't seems a case as of now.

how can information like "He has also been reported to have been raising his own army and 'human bomb squads' consisting of brainwashed" still on the page? , if you are responsible then show it to those who are adding such nonsense and you tolerated and allowed on main page. Dilpreet Singh ping 14:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're repeatedly accusing others of having a pro-state slant, when you should be focussing on the content, rather than the contributors. Even here you're saying talk page for amritpal singh filled with pro-hindutva lobby. The content issue you raise, which is separate from you not assuming good faith of other editors, sourced. Discussion about this should be on the talk page, without ascribing motives to other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.. if you think it is not pro-state or pro-hindutva then why we are seeing outrage on this article and tarnishing his image and projected him as a criminal ? it simply means what I accused them for is correct.

There are two issues: 1. content issue which we can disucuss and resolve. 2. editors are biased towards Sikh perspective and have more privilege than Sikh profiles, we need a balance and opportunity to add/remove the contents from the article, otherwise it's just one sided and biased article. Dilpreet Singh ping 15:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist), (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. >>> Extorc.talk 15:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed an error in my signature , it should be fine. Dilpreet Singh ping 15:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another warning, if you make a bunch of small edits to your user page to get the extended-confirmed permission it will be manually removed from your account. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we are back on my concern, why you still have misinformation, like "'human bomb squads' consisting of brainwashed" on the article and not allowing Sikhs profile to edit by protecting & keep malicious information. Dilpreet Singh ping 16:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you are not acting responsibly and want other to follows norms? Seriously? that's the reason we need more WP:RAA on Amritpal Singh (activist) and a balance unbiased article. mostly this article is active as its outrage and you are allowing people to read nonsense and something which is total false? Dilpreet Singh ping 16:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss content issues on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anyone here who is not acting responsibly, its you @Dilpreet Singh. >>> Extorc.talk 16:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well, here, only one person who's fighting against fake news and state narrative, you all are responsible for spreading until you let me speak and have unbiased article. Dilpreet Singh ping 16:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well how many "unbiased articles" you have cited for Amritpal? I only remember some advocacy sites like Baaz news or SikhPA Mixmon (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing

You were already notified of Wikipedia:Contentious topics above. Please read that link, the big yellow box in particular. And please stop repeating the same thing of a state-run propaganda. The talk page at Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist) is littered of it. There's nothing productive coming out of it. This is tendentious editing. If you continue to do so, I'll ask for a topic ban on you. Please work towards improving the article and engage in constructive discussion. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for that you need to allow other to edit or restrict pro-state lobby to further edit until it is discussed on the talk page. they are keep adding the information, you need to stop them and make the balance and unbiased article. Dilpreet Singh ping 21:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. >>> Extorc.talk 19:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filing another DRN request

Hello, I believe we should file another DRN request but focus on the WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE transgressions on a WP:BLP. Otherwise, they’ll try to close it for bureaucratic reasons and tell us to take it somewhere else. Let’s focus on how the content of the article is lacking and in violation of Wikipedia’s established rules, guidelines, and policies. Even though we may have suspicions about the motivations of certain editors, let’s try not to focus on that or make it the main argument as it will weaken our case. Therefore, we can have our issues addressed this time. Also, I have sources to share with you but I am considering getting them vetted at the reliable sources noticeboard so no one can claim they’re “unreliable” when we do choose to use them as citations in the article. We do not have to rush to fix the article, we have a lot of time to prepare and check to make sure we have a solid argument that cannot be brushed aside and ignored. Also, it is not only me and you who have noted the current issues in the article, many other users have as well who I have spoken with. So what is happening right now and how things are being decided with the article is in violation of WP:CONSENSUS if a large section of editors’ valid concerns are being disregarded like this. ThethPunjabi (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that would be very helpful. Please get all your sources examined at WP:RSN to protect editors at talk page from unproductive debate. Mixmon (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with that.. this is going nowhere and just in circle. there are a few news who are reporting Sikhs side of discussion. check international media like 'vice' and local paper rozanapehredar (print media in punjab). vice might have no issue here moreover rozanapehredar is a local media it would be good if we get examined it at WP:RSN. Dilpreet Singh ping 21:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

It is unfair decision to block my profile on wikipedia merely based on highlighting behaviour of other people towards me. moderators who have no idea about the dynamic between sikhs & hindu conflict are making decision without understanding passive aggressive nature of the editors biasedness. there are two issues which i have been facing. 1. Balanced conversation. 2. opportunity to edit/protect the article. until now they ignored my concerns and produce article Amritpal_Singh_(activist) which is highly biased and have WP:NPOV WP:BALANCE WP: COI , I raised a few of many points of conflict moreover, instead of fixing those issue, my profile is blocked. Dilpreet Singh ping 22:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the specific reason for your block, namely personal attacks. If you will be making another appeal, you need to review WP:GAB first, especially WP:NOTTHEM. Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please take a moment to update your signature

Hi there! Your signature contains some obsolete wikicode, specifically <font>...</font> tags. Here's an updated version of it that should look the same:

<span style="background:#F59818; padding:2px;"><span style="color: white;"><b>Dilpreet Singh</b> </span></span><span style="background:#223E99;   padding:2px;">'''[[User_talk:Dilpreet_Singh|<span style="color: white;">ping</span>]] '''</span>

To fix your signature:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Change the signature as shown above, or make other edits to make the signature appear how you want it to appear.
Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.

Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I updated signature as recommended. Dilpreet Singh ping 21:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your updated signature looks good and has no errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]