User talk:Wham2001: Difference between revisions

For new visitors: Welcome! Please leave new messages at the bottom, and sign with four tildes (~~~~). If you message me here I will reply here; if you’re not logged into an account I may leave {{tb}} on your IP address’s talk page.

For returning visitors: Welcome back!

Note: My watchlist gets over 1000 edits per day so I don’t look at it any longer. If you want my input in a discussion, please ping me or write something here. Wham2001 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

—Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you Gerda Wham2001 (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual creation of non-notable pages and drafts by Numspan33. Thank you.–Jasper Deng (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That draft must be one of the most chaotic things I’ve seen on Wikipedia – glad it’s been deleted again. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello, do not worry about the sources on the legalism page yet, I have to go through them. I have a tendency to source stack and then trim later.FourLights (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, that makes sense. Thanks for dropping by to let me know Wham2001 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how I’m supposed to upload vids to the pages I’m working on? DementedSoul4000 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DementedSoul4000, this information page should have what you need (particularly the “Uploading video” and “Embedding” sections).

But can I ask, is this for Draft:Sword4000? I am going to be blunt here – right now your chances of getting that draft published as an article on Wikipedia are essentially zero. There are a set of criteria that determine whether an article should be included in Wikipedia known as the “notability guidelines” (it’s not a good name – “inclusion guidelines” would be closer to the mark). For an article about a living person you need to show either:

• That the article subject has has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:GNG) or
• That they meet one of the extra criteria in WP:NPERSON – in this case probably WP:NENT.

Wikipedia gets lots of draft articles about youtubers, and they almost all get rejected for lack of sourcing. As far as I can see no third-party reliable sources have written about Sword4000, and so your draft will get rejected as well when you submit it. I’m saying this, not as a criticism or your work or because I have anything against Minecraft videos, but because I don’t want you to spend lots of time on the draft and then not get anywhere with it. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DementedSoul4000, please don’t remove either messages written by other people, or messages from you that have been replied to, from talk pages (either user talk or article talk pages). I’ve restored this section. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more advice. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks ago, you had flagged some broken footnotes at Talk:Flaming Creatures#Missing sources. Is there a tool you were using to identify those? Trying to see if there’s a way to automatically check footnotes I add on other articles. hinnk (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hinnk, I use User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js, which highlights problems with {{harv}} and {{sfn}} references, in particular duplicate or missing long-form bibligraphic details. It’s super-useful Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This should make things much easier. hinnk (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this revert. Apparently my forgetfulness. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries I sometimes think that we would be better off if all the references, external links, see-also sections etc. on Wikipedia were handled via some sort of relational database – then validity of the footnotes, avoiding repeated references, etc. could be done automatically and I would need to find some other way of filling quiet Sundays. On the other hand, looking at Wikidata, perhaps we’re better off as we are. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for fixing the weird typos in my copyedit of the Kim Beazley article. I don’t know what happened but I was having some key pressing problems on my keyboard yesterday. I should have checked the edit after making it. Cheers, Yahboo (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries – these kinda things happen Thanks for dropping by! Wham2001 (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re sfn style I did Chandler in June, and I’ve just fixed O’Connor and Flynn. I found them in old revisions of the article. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the best I feel a bit embarrassed now that I hadn’t thought to look in old article revisions – there’s always a trick to learn here, it seems. Thanks again for all your work on the sfns, Wham2001 (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Social Security (United States), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a recent edit from you at Flag of Bahia, placing an endash between two page numbers within a template. I am curious as to whether that fits with the following element from MOS:RANGES;

Do not change hyphens to dashes in filenames, URLs, or templates such as {{Bibleverse}} (which formats verse ranges into URLs), even if a range is embedded in them

Please note that this is an enquiry; I do not know the answer one way or the other for certainty, but maybe you do have that knowledge?

(A second question might be to ask if such an edit is critical to Wikipedia; for instance I will often lazily add the minus sign as a dash here on Talk pages – should I take myself out back and give myself myself a damn good kicking for it?)
WendlingCrusader (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would read that passage from MOS:RANGES as saying not to use en-dashes in templates that reformat their output into URLs (because the URLs then would be broken), rather than in templates in general. You can see that e.g. the page range in the sixth example on {{cite book}} uses a en-dash, and {{cite book}} doesn’t reformat the page range to use an en-dash (or indeed reformat it at all other than prepending “pp.”), so MOS:PAGERANGE would imply that you should put the en-dash in the template input.

For the second part, should you care – I don’t think so. 99% of our readers probably don’t know what the difference between an en-dash and a hyphen is, and won’t notice if you use the wrong one. I only change them because I’m one of the handful of obsessive weirdos that does notice – it’s like an itch that you keep on scratching. If it doesn’t bother you, better to focus the effort on something that matters more to the reader – which is practically anything else.

Thanks for dropping by Wham2001 (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good answer, and if you follow my edits you will see that one of my peccadillos is the gross abuse of Infoboxes, which often includes date ranges that are presented incorrectly (per MOS) – the difference being that Infoboxes are much more in-your-face. So I am all in favour of applying en-dashes where they are highly visible, even though 12 months ago I didn’t even know such things existed. Thanks to Wikipedia I think we should both probably commission a T-shirt with the logo ‘Wikipedia turned me into a Weirdo’, although in my case I probably didn’t have that far to travel.

Hey, do you want to see an Infobox that drives me nuts? German submarine U-369 – and there were 703 U-boats in that class alone, and well over 500 articles on Wikipedia, with every single Infobox repeating the same ‘General Characteristics’, at length. Every single goddamn one gets its own page, even those that “carried out no patrols/did not sink or damage any ships”. I just haven’t got the cojones to step up and ask if that is right and proper to flood each Infobox with the same detail, because the military-mafia here will probably close ranks and put me in front of a firing squad. And I’m a certified coward!

Forgive my digression. If you are happy with your en-dash edits, then I’m happy too. WendlingCrusader (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was certainly weird before Wikipedia, but I’d still wear the t-shirt!

I agree that the tendency for every “notable” topic to have its own article, even if there’s nothing to say about it, is pretty stupid. That submarine is a good example – it would be perfectly adequately described in a table or bulleted list in the article about the submarine class. Will a Great Consolidation of super-short articles ever happen? Hard to predict, I think. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey bro I get what you mean but that YouTube video is about an interview done with assyrian politican ano abdoka who says that Assyrians number 282.000 to 250.000 in Iraq he has official church documents and leads Assyrian.crusader (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise Assyrian.crusader to take this argument to the article talk page – though “youtube video of a politician being interviewed” is not a source I would choose, without more, to rely on – but I see they’ve been indefinitely blocked for harassment and POV-pushing. Wham2001 (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated History of Christianity – again – please take a look and criticize at will. Here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive2 Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for letting me know! I’m not sure that I know enough about the subject to offer any useful review, but I will read through the article at least. To attempt to bring a topic with such broad scope to FA is brave, to say the least! Best of luck with the reviews, Wham2001 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made several changes to the hells angels page. Particularly the support clubs from Canada. I am in one of them and would appreciate it if you reversed the edits. Thank you 156.34.75.2 (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember these edits, but only rather vaguely and I can’t find them in my edit history. Could you please post diffs to them and explain briefly why you think I’m wrong? Or, even better, start a discussion on the article talk page and ping me to it. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for demonstrating the ref=none trick for sfn and harvp citation styles on I. Bernard Cohen. That will also help me elsewhere. RowanElder (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! In case you didn’t know, if you want to use harv/sfn to cite more than one publication by the same author and in the same year then the usual approach is to add a suffix (a,b,c…) to the year in both the long-form reference and the sfn template; see e.g. McIntosh 2000a and b in Piri Reis map. But if you don’t want to re-use one of the references the ref=none trick is easier and cleaner for the reader. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again: I had seen the use of suffixes documented in the template docs but I had missed “ref=none.” RowanElder (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I’d have to read it again, but do you think I should simply leave Han Fei and Shen Buhai discussions for their respective pages as long as they are mentioned. I was going to look at shrinking the page while restoring some Confucian content.FourLights (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly work on references here – I really don’t know anything about the subject, beyond what I’ve read of your articles! I generally think that keeping extended content in once place instead of repeating across multiple articles is a good idea when possible, though. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Crisis on Earth-X, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you just made to Jimmy Carter made the footnote look better, but it removed the link to page 45. You can see that in the footnote at the bottom of Talk:Jimmy Carter – Wikipedia. I don’t have the skills to do this; would you please do it? Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies @Maurice Magnus – fixed. There is a more elegant way to produce these links using Template: Google Books URL or something similar but I don’t think it’s worth the extra effort, personally.

If you frequently edit articles that use {{sfn}} and friends, may I take the opportunity to plug this script, which highlights shortened footnotes that either don’t link to a source or link to multiple sources? I find it very helpful for reference gnoming

Best, Wham2001 (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The references section of this article is very old. Many of the sources now have online versions available. If I’m careful to preserve the citations (the ones that are accurate; I’ve found a couple that do not say what is claimed and one that did, but was placed incorrectly in the article) is it okay for me to redo the Notes and References the sections into the bog-standard References section with the citations that give a reader the link to the online source when they mouse over the citation? The way it was done originally was excellent for 13 years ago, but it’s very obsolete. Readers I see around me in the library, at internet cafés and at home don’t really want to click through a note to a reference section. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two months later I guess this is pretty stale, but: in theory you should ask on the article talk page if you want to change the citation style in an article, but if the article is largely abandoned and you are doing major renovation work nobody is likely to care. You can also add gbooks links to sfns, btw. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Christianity has been completely reworked and is nominated – again- for FA. Please take a look.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jen – I will try to find time to take a look, though my wiki-work is very limited by non-wiki-work right now. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

—Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you Gerda! I hope you are singing something glorious for Easter Wham2001 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Wham2001– I recently made significant edits to this page, and was just curious to know why you decided to reverse them? I wasn’t duplicating information that was already there, but was aiming to enhance the narrative that the page presents, including information that it is missing. I’d be grateful for more information on why this got removed. ThanksAde1a1de (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response @Ade1a1de – I’ve not had much time for Wikipedia the last couple of weeks. I reverted your edits because one of them duplicated most of the content of the article – see this diff. This is probably an obscure browser bug, because I see it happen to editors from time to time and they usually aren’t aware. I suggest that you have another go at making the edits – I would have tried to unpick the bits that you’d changed myself but in my experience doing that with most of the article present twice is very difficult. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wham2001, thanks for your reply and no worries! Just to clarify (because I’m not sure I’ve understood what you mean), which edit was it that duplicated the article? And did that mean that I copied my edited version in without removing any of the original? I am intending to try and reinstate some of my edits, but that might be slightly harder now because some more recent work has been done on a lot of the sections. Thanks Ade1a1de (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – it was this edit at 13.55 on May 8. As you can see from that link a big chunk of text ended up in the article twice. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this edit, I didn’t look at the edit history and thought some funny business was at hand. Thanks again!

– Plasticwonder (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I should apologise since I didn’t notice that I was reverting you – I make so many edits of this sort that I don’t remember most of the individual articles, sadly. But I think everything is fine now. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wham2001, I am editing Christine’s Wikipedia page, and noticed you removed some content that was deemed promotional, you also noted spaces where I needed to add citations. There are also 3 notices at the top of her page that I need to address. Would you be able to help me make the appropriate fixes to remove these notices?

Couple of questions:
1. I added citations for those that I could find, however there are 2 that I cannot find citations for, I will ask Christine and if she does not have a citation for these do I need to remove these sentences?

2. Is there any way I can reword those sections you removed so they do not sound promotional and then add it back to her page?

Thanks for your help with this. I want her page to be in good standing. 2601:CB:8101:E400:F569:2F47:4278:E766 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank-you for reaching out to me here. If you are employed by or closely associated with Christine then you have a conflict of interest, and should not edit the article directly. There is advice on dealing with conflicts of interest on Wikipedia here. In summary, you should locate suitable sources and then make edit requests on the article talk page – there are a number of editors who patrol such requests and they will discuss your requests with you and take action as appropriate.

Regarding what sources are suitable for use on Wikipedia, this guideline describes what is looked for in a suitable source. Essentially it should be reliable (i.e. from an origin known for high-quality, accurate and neutral work), independent (i.e. not associated with the article subject) and published (so that readers and editors can verify the information it contains). In an ideal case, the article should contain only information drawn from such sources, and should give weight to such information in accordance with the weight it is given in the sources; this is the kernel of the neutral point of view policy which is central to how Wikipedia works.

Finally, I would recommend looking at the Wikipedia policy on writing about living people. This is mostly concerned with ensuring that biographical articles are written conservatively and with due regard to the subject’s privacy.

Having said all that, I hope that the answer to your question 2 is now clear – we should work forwards from what the sources say, and you should summarise them and present the summary in an edit request on the article talk page.

Best wishes, Wham2001 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to check your edit on the 1995 Gdańsk gas explosion page and yeah it’s a mistake. If you go to the original Polish page and look at the passage: “Kilka dni przed zdarzeniem zaczął wywozić z mieszkania jego wyposażenie” then you can look at the citations and it’s 123-125, and 2018. So it was a mistake I made after writing a lot. Thanks for correcting and doing some other edits on that page. Luxtaythe2nd (_{Talk to me…}) 12:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great – thank-you for checking! 12:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC) Wham2001 (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for your interest in the Hands of the Cause article. The change of ISBN you made in the article, makes me wonder if the pages in the same book with different ISBN will have the same numbers. Thanks for your clarifications.Bineshgardi (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So there are two answers to this question. The first is: this is a potential issue, and for that reason I would not have made the edit I did under normal circumstances. However, the ISBN given in the article previously was invalid, as you can see by going to Special:BookSources/0-85398317, and so was probably transcribed incorrectly by the editor who added it originally. My impression is that, for relatively modern books, publishers do not re-typeset them when going from e.g. a hardback to a paperback edition and so the page numbers are usually unchanged, but obviously one can’t rely on that. If you have access to any full-text version of the book (I don’t) the best thing would be to check each reference and update the ISBN and all page numbers to a version that you know is correct.

The second answer, which I only realised after typing the paragraph above, comes from comparing the old, invalid ISBN (085398317, the dash is immaterial, bolding added for highlighting) and the new one (9780853982319). The first thing you notice is that they are the same except that the new one has a “978” on the front, an extra 2 in the middle, and the final digit is different. The “978” comes because the new ISBN is a 13-number ISBN, which is a newer standard, and the old one is a 10-number ISBN – each valid 10-number ISBN has a corresponding 13-number ISBN and the latter is a new standard will ultimately replace the older, shorter ones. The last digit is different because it’s a check digit which guards against transcription errors and so the additional “978” on the front causes it to be different – there’s an explanation of ISBN check digits here. And the 2 is missing in the old one, which was why it was invalid in the first place.

So TLDR: the new ISBN is the 13-number version of the old ISBN once its missing digit has been re-inserted, so they refer to the same edition of the book and hence the page numbers are still correct (assuming they were correct in the first place!)

Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I get it! Thank you for your prompt and educative response. Bineshgardi (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wham2001 Hello again!

I found the book in question. It has 3 ISBNs, 0853982309 above the barcode, 9780853982302 below the barcode, and 0-853982317 on the jacket of the back of the book. The one that you offered (9780853982319) is no where in/out of the book to be found. very interesting. I tried the 4th one, and it worked. What are the other ones on the back of the book then?! Very curious. Thanks!:) Bineshgardi (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed reply – I have been too busy for Wikipedia for the last few weeks!

So these ISBNs go in pairs. 0853982309 and 9780853982302 are an ISBN10 and ISBN13 pair, as are 0853982317 and 9780853982319 – I’ve highlighted the overlapping parts again. So the first two ISBNs make sense. The third one is odd. If you ignore the final digit, which is a check digit calculated from the rest of the ISBN, it’s essentially the original ISBN plus 1. As I understand it publishers often reserve ISBNs in pairs or threes e.g. for a hardback and then later softback edition, or for a printed and ebook edition. Reprints don’t get new ISBNs, but reissues with different pagenation etc. can. So I can’t see why a single volume would have two ISBNs on it, and the ISBN article doesn’t give any helpful suggestions. It is of course possible that the publisher has made a printing error and put the ISBN for the softback edition on the hardback, or something similar. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! No matter when your responses arrive, they are always valuable, appreciated, and welcomed. Thank you very much! Bineshgardi (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wham2001. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary account IP viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. Happy editing! Mz7 (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mz7! Wham2001 (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wham2001, I’ve proposed adding the {{Theravada}} template to the Charles Henry Allan Bennett article to highlight his Theravāda contributions (see proposal). Given your content and citation edits in 2021–2024, your feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! AK108B (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello there

About a year ago you made the citation style of short footnotes in the Napoleon article more consistent by changing sfn to sfnp. I have just discovered that many citations use harvp. There are 268 cases of sfnp v 193 Harvp. I would like to make all citations sfnp as this is the majority style. However, I am hopeless at source editing. Do you know a quick and easy way this can be done? Thanks in advance for any help.

Cheers Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the answer to that is no. I’ve converted the references that I can do quickly and easily, but the named references will have to be done by hand, as far as I’m aware, and that will be very boring given how long the article is. Personally I see {{sfnp}} and {{harvp}} as two elements of the same citation style – sfnp is more convenient but harvp provides more flexibility for e.g. including other text in the reference. But I can see why you would prefer to have just one or the other. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for doing that so quickly! My long term goal is to get this to GA status so I will convert the others individually as I check each reference. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]