Wikipedia

Talk:Jex Blackmore/GA1

< Talk:Jex Blackmore
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Grnrchst in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago18 comments2 people in discussion
PASSED
Concerns with prose and sourcing addressed, article now meets GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: ProfGray (talk · contribs) 03:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 15:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! I'm happy to take this on for review, as part of Women in Green's edit-a-thon and the GAN backlog drive. Thankyou for submitting this during the previous WiG and apologies it has taken this long for a review to materialise. I hope you choose to continue participating in the GAN process in the future! I first became aware of Blackmoore after their controversial ousting from TST, so I'm interested to learn more about them, particularly their performance art and other activism. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

Early life and education

edit
  • Spotcheck: [1] Verified everything but the birth date. Is there another source we can cite to confirm this as Blackmore's birth date?
  • Do you know of any other sources that can be cited for this information? As interviews with the subject of an article aren't independent sources, it's best to cite independent, secondary sources if they exist. (Although this information is relatively non-controversial, so I won't push this if there aren't better sources for this)
  • Blackmore's CV is not a reliable source, it should be cut and any information drawn solely from it (i.e. graduation and the degree being in archaeology) should be removed.
  • Spotcheck: [4] Verified all but their graduation with a BA in classical archaeology.
  • As an aside, their studies in art history seem more relevant to their overall biography than their apparent studies in archaeology.
  • The date you accessed this article (access-date) and a wikilink to Hyperallergic should be provided in the citation.

Satanism

edit
  • Do we know when Blackmore joined TST or when the Detroit branch was founded?
    • Cited source says they established the branch in August 2014 after meeting Greaves in Boston, so this detail should be included.
  • Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
  • Wikilink to ABC News (United States) in the citation.
  • "Blackmore was a member of the Satanic Temple (TST) as founder and leader of the active chapter in Detroit" Bit of an oddly structured sentence. I think this could be trimmed down to "Blackmore was the founder and leader of the Detroit chapter of the Satanic Temple (TST).
  • "and organized the first public unveiling" Start a new sentence here, so "They organized [...]"
  • Spotcheck: [6] Verified all but this being the "first public unveiling". Is there another source that confirms this being the first time?
  • Access date and wikilink to Time (magazine) should be provided in the citation.
  • I think Blackmore's interpretation of the monument, seen it Time and ABC News, would be an interesting thing to include.
  • Citations [5] and [7] are for the same source, so they should be merged.
  • If the unveiling of the Baphomet statue took place in July 2015, then it should be mentioned after the December 2014 nativity demonstration, in order to maintain chronology.
  • Wikilink to MLive Media Group in the citation.
  • Spotcheck: [8] Verified all except the interpretation of the nativity scene.
    • "alluding to the fall of man and the Genesis creation narrative of the snake and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" While this is a likely interpretation, it is still a novel interpretation, as this isn't provided in the cited source. If a source can't be found, this should be cut.
  • Reactions to the nativity stunt and Blackmore's own comments on it may be worth including.
  • Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
  • "a response to that year's anti-abortion National Day of Protest: a piece of political theatre:" The double colon is a very odd use of punctuation. Give this a rework.
  • Specify that this happened in August 2015, for chronology's sake.
  • This is a very long unattributed quote from the Vice article. This should be rewritten in summary style, and in your own words.
  • Wikilink to Vice Media in the citation.
  • Worth adding that this stunt was specifically in response to an attack ad against Planned Parenthood, as well as a summary of Blackmore's comments.
  • "In the Detroit version, Blackmore held up a sign, "America is not a theocracy. End forced motherhood."" Considering this is just a sign, and it's cited to an image gallery on their own website, I think this can be removed.
  • Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
  • Can you summarise this quote from Blackmore?
  • "criticized Satanism as sexist" This implies they are criticising Satanism as a whole, rather than a specific branch of it.
  • There's a good deal more in this source about Blackmore's feminist satanism, which might be worth discussing in this article.
  • Spotcheck: [13][14] Detail about it not being endorsed by TST is only in the Vice source, and the quote is only in the Journal of Communication Inquiry source. These citations should be moved in line with the specific information they're verifying, rather than bundled together.
  • "Scholars termed their effort as a grotesque protest" What scholars? Specific attribution is needed, especially if we're directly quoting Kristin Marie Bivens and Kirsti Cole.
  • Wikilink to Journal of Communication Inquiry in citation and add an ISSN.
  • There's more detail in the JCI source that could be included.
  • Remove the citation to the documentary and Blackmore's own website.
  • "resigned from or was removed from" Which was it? The Journal for the Study of New Religions says they resigned; Word & Way says TST "cut ties" and "parted ways" with Blackmore, which is quite different from being removed from it.
  • When in 2018 did this happen? JSNR says they resigned in March 2018.
  • Provide an ISSN for the Journal for the Study of New Religions.
  • "statements deemed too extreme" Deemed too extreme by whom?
  • Spotcheck: [15][11] Quote is from Word & Way, detail about their resignation is from JSNR. Citations should be moved inline with the information they're verifying, rather than bundled together at the end.
  • Is the name "Subversive Autonomous" important to include? Would "During a performance" suffice?
  • Can you summarise this quote from Blackmore?
  • What does TST think about Blackmore saying all this? Their perspective should probably be referenced for the sake of balance.
  • What was the debate between Blackmore and the WBC about?
  • Spotcheck: [19] Verified.

Abortion rights

edit
  • Spotcheck: [20] Verified all but the specific date. Is the November 26 date somewhere I'm missing?
  • Wikilink to Cosmopolitan (magazine) in the citation.
  • Spotcheck: [21] Verified.
  • Wikilink to Dazed
  • Why is this TST protest mentioned here and not in the previous section? The other performance pieces here seem to be unaffiliated with TST, so I'm just wondering.
  • Spotcheck: [22] Verified.
  • "One hundred pounds of rotten fruit while awaiting her second abortion, in which they were pelted with one hundred pounds of rotten fruit" The description is repetitive with the title of the piece. I think one or the other can be trimmed.
  • Wikilink to Ms. (magazine) in the citation.
  • "In a performance art journal, Blackmore wrote," Citation? What performance art journal was this?
  • Spotcheck: [23] Verified.
  • I think this could be moved up before the quote.
  • "Blackmore took an abortion medication" Think it should say "took abortion medication"
  • Spotcheck: [22][24] Verified.
  • What was the reaction to them taking an abortion pill on live tv? From the host or otherwise?
  • This Washington Post quote can easily be summarised.
  • Wikilink to The Washington Post in the citation.
  • Spotcheck: [25] Verified.
  • Provide publication date and a wikilink to Metro Times in the citation.
  • Did this campaign have an effect? What was the response?

Film and performance art

edit
  • Remove the citation to Blackmore's own website.
  • Spotcheck: [27][28] Verified, although the quote about the "satanic jeremiad" is only in The New Republic.
  • Wikilink to Variety (magazine) and The New Republic in the citations.
  • Is this Ann Arbor demonstration covered anywhere other than Blackmore's own website? If so, then we should be citing those independent sources. If not, then this event may not have been notable enough to include.
  • Spotcheck: [30] Verified.
  • Can we summarise these unattributed quotes?
  • What's the publication date for the CURA article?
  • Spotcheck: [32] This text is a bit too close for comfort to the text in the Reader source, especially when there's a part of it in quotation marks but the rest is also more or less identical to the source.
  • Ditto, is this performance mentioned anywhere other than Blackmore's own website? If not, this should probably be removed.
  • Spotcheck: [35][36] Verified quote in AA FilmFest website. Can we summarise it?
  • Spotcheck: [37] Verified.
  • Again, best not to be citing Blackmore's own website.
  • "Blackmore has dabbled in spoken word performance, too, teaming up with singer Lydia Lunch when she visited Detroit in April 2022. Citation?

Personal life

edit
  • My Recipes article is dead. An archived link should be provided, as should an access date.
  • "their cat named for a goat in The Witch," What is the cat/goat called?
  • Unclear how the latter two sentences of this are about their personal life.
  • Spotcheck: [21] Verified.

Lead and infobox

edit
  • No notes.

Checklist

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I think this article has issues that are preventing me from passing it, but I think they could be fixed with a bit of work.
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    A couple areas where grammar and punctuation could be tightened up.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
    All good on manual of style front.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    Some sources should have access dates provided, one includes a dead link that needs archival.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):  
    Some parts where citations are bundled, rather than being cited inline with the information they're verifying. Many citations are to Blackmore's own website, in situations where an independent, secondary source would be preferable.
    C. It contains no original research:  
    One clear case of novel interpretation.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
    One place where it gets a bit too closely paraphrased for comfort, but otherwise no clear cases of plagiarism or copyvio.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    All main aspects I'd expect to be addressed are, although there's a couple places I think more detail could be added.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
    Very focused, no issues here.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
    I think other perspectives could be provided in places, in order to maintain balance.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
    There were a series of reverted edits by IP users in May 2024, but otherwise all good.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    All images were granted permission for use by Blackmore.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
    All images are relevant, depicting the subject and events mentioned. Ideally alt text should be provided.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    This article still needs work, but I think with a bit of TLC it could well get to meeting the GA criteria. Ping me when you feel you have addressed everything or if you need clarification and I'll be happy to give it another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Amazing work, such a thorough review!
I am starting to make changes.
Done. 2A -- added retrieved date (I used today after relooking) and fixed dead link
Response / question. "Blackmore's CV is not a reliable source, it should be cut and any information drawn solely from it (i.e. graduation and the degree being in archaeology) should be removed." -- Hi. This is the only info that relies primarily on the CV, though alma mater mentioned elsewhere. WP:AboutSelf has 5 criteria for use of something like CV and this usage seems to fit all 5 criteria, eg, not self-serving and unexceptional. OK?
Later, the review states: "Many citations are to Blackmore's own website, in situations where an independent, secondary source would be preferable." -- I agree and have done the best I can to do so. Happy to discuss specific info that relies solely on their website, and if it satisfies WP:AboutSelf.
"As an aside, their studies in art history seem more relevant to their overall biography than their apparent studies in archaeology." -- agreed, but mentioned both since it would be selective to only choose one of their college majors
Birthdate -- yeah, this is an issue and I need to remember who I ended up verifying it.
Response. "Spotcheck: [20] Verified all but the specific date. Is the November 26 date somewhere I'm missing?" -- The date is in the Jezebel article, cited by Cosmo, but I was told not to use Jezebel.https://www.jezebel.com/satanic-temple-detroits-spokeswoman-publishes-two-week-1746241876?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+jezebel%2Ffull+%28Jezebel%29 The date is also shown in NLR coverage https://nrlc.org/nrlnewstoday/2015/12/satanic-temple-director-blogs-her-abortion-step-by-step-over-two-weeks/ and the date is seen in the hyperlink used by the Washington Post coverage, at the phrase "she wrote on the day of her abortion" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/10/why-the-satanic-temples-spokeswoman-is-blogging-her-abortion/ I can add the WaPo article as a reference, though that will then throw off the numbering of citations. Timing also supported by Vice: https://www.vice.com/en/article/this-satanic-temple-leader-is-blogging-her-abortion/
Improved first paragraph about founding Detroit chapter, including reordering by chronology there.
Concern and Response. Definitely this concern makes sense: "[8] Verified all except the interpretation of the nativity scene. "alluding to the fall of man and the Genesis creation narrative of the snake and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" While this is a likely interpretation, it is still a novel interpretation, as this isn't provided in the cited source. If a source can't be found, this should be cut."
Thanks again for the in-depth review. I will work more on it soon. ProfGray (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Further edits:
  • Done. "Cited source says they established the branch in August 2014"
  • Done. "Start a new sentence here, so "They organized [...]""
  • Done. "Citations [5] and [7] are for the same source, so they should be merged."
  • Done. "The double colon is a very odd use of punctuation. Give this a rework." and "Specify that this happened in August 2015"
  • Done. Wikilinks for various publications
  • Done. "Detail about it not being endorsed by TST is only in the Vice source, and the quote is only in the Journal of Communication Inquiry source. These citations should be moved in line with the specific information they're verifying, rather than bundled together." and "Specific attribution is needed, especially if we're directly quoting Kristin Marie Bivens and Kirsti Cole."
  • Done (i.e., by TST). ""statements deemed too extreme" Deemed too extreme by whom?"
Concern: "Is there another source that confirms this being the first time?"
  • Response: "Unveiling" here itself means the first time, so "first" is redundant. Thus, Detroit News writes, "The event will kick off the group's legal efforts to secure placement of the monument next to a Ten Commandments monument on public grounds in Oklahoma or Arkansas." -- "kick off" means it's their first public event, too. The Reuters coverage is similar: "A Satanic organization unveiled a controversial bronze Baphomet sculpture in Detroit just before midnight on Saturday, after trying in vain to have it installed near a 10 Commandments monument in Oklahoma." Unveiled = first showing, "after trying in vain" = previous attempt at first.
Concern: "Is the name "Subversive Autonomous" important to include?"
Concern: "What was the debate between Blackmore and the WBC about?" Response: It was open ended, the source mentions topics: first amendment, "gay rights, abortion, and separation of church and state" and Catholic church. So, I don't see any easy way to summarize it. (btw, source says they "separated from the Temple," which is Blackmore's POV)
Not done yet -- paraphrasing quotes or adding interesting info from cited sources
For further discussion:
  • "Remove the citation to the documentary and Blackmore's own website."
  • I'm not sure how to best write about the conflicting reports of their departure from TST, apparently based on conflicting info from the parties involved -- ""resigned from or was removed from" Which was it? The Journal for the Study of New Religions says they resigned; Word & Way says TST "cut ties" and "parted ways" with Blackmore, which is quite different from being removed from it. Laylock says "Blackmore parted ways with TST soon afterward." (after Subversive Autonomous)
  • "What does TST think about Blackmore saying all this? Their perspective should probably be referenced for the sake of balance." -- IIRC, Greaves says little about Blackmore in Hail Satan, not sure I've seen other TST comments on their departure.
ProfGray (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Edits on abortion section:
  • Q: "Why is this TST protest mentioned here and not in the previous section? The other performance pieces here seem to be unaffiliated with TST, so I'm just wondering." A: Besides Satanism, their major focus has been on abortion rights (and related ideology). Since abortion needed its own section, it made sense to include the one TST event that was a crossover. (I thnk there were other TST events on abortion, but not w a big role for Blackmore.
  • Q: "In a performance art journal, Blackmore wrote," Citation? What performance art journal was this?" A: Fixed missing citation. It was the same as the citation for the next sentence after the block quote, but not clear. The journal is called Emergency Index.
  • Done. "Think it should say "took abortion medication""
  • Q: "What was the reaction to them taking an abortion pill on live tv? From the host or otherwise?" Blackmore was pretty nonchalant, which was the Point, but a conservative guest on Fox did react. -- anti-abortion activist Rebecca Kiessling. I could add that in, time permitting. Jezebel (deprecated source) wrote: "Kiessling wrote on Facebook afterward that she hoped Blackmore would consider “reversing” the abortion pill, referring to a pseudoscientific scheme where people take a bunch of progesterone to try to counteract the mifepristone and has landed pregnant people in the emergency room due to vaginal hemorrhaging, or excessive bleeding. “Please pray…pray for Jax [sic] Blackmore to have a change of heart and do the abortion pill reversal, pray for her baby, pray for us all, pray to end abortion,” Kiessling wrote." Better source, WaPo: " https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/01/26/jex-blackmore-tv-abortion-pill/ --> Rebecca Kiessling, an advocate and lawyer brought on to argue the antiabortion stance, dropped her jaw slightly, closed her eyes and shook her head. After the show, Kiessling later wrote in a Facebook post, “I just broke down in tears.”
  • Done. "Provide publication date and a wikilink to Metro Times n the citation."
  • Q: "Did this campaign have an effect? What was the response?" A: I found this quote from Jex: "Overwhelmingly, the response has been positive. Though, as usual, I’ve received several death threats, sexist attacks, and distraught Catholic mothers going out of their way to call me a murderer. I am not convinced that much has “changed,” per say, but I have noticed a swell of support from Gen Z." https://peoplesworld.org/article/abortion-pills-forever-an-interview-with-artist-and-activist-jex-blackmore/ Should I add this to the article?
  • Need to figure this out -- "I think this could be moved up before the quote."
Thanks again for the detailed review. Above finishes abortion section, except for writing suggestions and summarizing quotes. ProfGray (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Film Performance art section
  • Shifted citations. "the quote about the "satanic jeremiad" is only in The New Republic."
  • Done. "Is this Ann Arbor demonstration covered anywhere other than Blackmore's own website? If so, then we should be citing those independent sources. If not, then this event may not have been notable enough to include." Which to use? Daily Beast, FemmeCult, Life News (pro-life), Raw Story -- I'll go w Daily Beast and add FemmeCult as under-represented media for alt art.
  • Done. "What's the publication date for the CURA article?" I found the date here: https://www.lespressesdureel.com/EN/ouvrage.php?id=9187&menu=0
ProfGray (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Done. "This text is a bit too close for comfort to the text in the Reader source, especially when there's a part of it in quotation marks but the rest is also more or less identical to the source." -- reworded, thanks
  • Done? "Ditto, is this performance mentioned anywhere other than Blackmore's own website? If not, this should probably be removed." It's mentioned in Ms., which I added as a reference, and by People's World. Does that suffice? Again, I guess there's the issue of how much we can rely on an artist's website as reliable about themselves.
  • Done. ""Blackmore has dabbled in spoken word performance, too, teaming up with singer Lydia Lunch when she visited Detroit in April 2022. Citation?" Deleting this. Might only be on her website and a few minor concert things. If I had a better reference, not finding it now.
Except for skipping, again, the summarizing of quotes, this section is done. I must admit that here some paraphrasing would be hard to do, terms of art.ProfGray (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Starting to deal with long quotes:
  • Review: "This is a very long unattributed quote from the Vice article. This should be rewritten in summary style, and in your own words." Rewrite here.
  • Review: "This Washington Post quote can easily be summarised." Rewrite here, retaining a few quoted words.
  • Review: "Can we summarise these unattributed quotes?" Rewrite here, of one quote about Sex Militant. Not confident I can paraphrase the other one.
  • Review: On TST ending: "Can you summarise this quote from Blackmore? What does TST think about Blackmore saying all this? Their perspective should probably be referenced for the sake of balance." Response: Well, it's hard to do justice to what's implied by the quote. I do think it'd be good to get TST's account.
@Grnrchst, hi, thanks again for your thorough review. I've corrected references, resolved some problems, summarized some quotations, etc. I've also responded to various concerns. If you don't mind, it'd be great if you could look through my responses, let me know if any are adequate and which are still priorities for a GA clearance. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for seeing to the comments, unfortunately I still have concerns that I don't think have been sufficiently addressed. In particular, I worry that my concerns with criteria 2B, the main criteria blocking this article from passing, haven't been addressed.
  • Regarding the CV: A curriculum vitae is by definition a self-serving document, as it's used by people to present a polished version of themselves with the purpose of seeking employment. I have read too many CVs that contain blatant lies to think they are reliable primary sources about the subject. In any respect, Blackmore's studies in archaeology don't appear to be relevant to their biography, where their studies in art history clearly are; you may think it "selective" to only mention one, but reliable secondary sources only mention the one! If Hyperallergic doesn't think it worth mentioning their studies in archaeology, I don't see why we're citing their CV just to include it, when it isn't even relevant overall.
  • Regarding the November 26 date, the Snaketivity scene, the statue unveiling, the "Subversive Autonomous" performance, the abortion pill on Fox and the abortion information campaign: Why are you citing sources for information in this review rather than in this article? You have sources for information that I challenged here? Then incorporate them into the article! Citing a source in a review isn't useful to our readers.
  • You're already mentioning the documentary in the text. Citing "2019 documentary film Hail Satan?" as a reference to itself, especially without a timestamp or any other information usually included in an AV media citation, is redundant.
  • If there are conflicting reports about their departure, then attribute the different claims rather than synthesising them into a vague "It is not clear" statement.
  • If you're quoting from an article they wrote for a journal, cite the name of the journal in the text! Vaguely gesturing at "an art journal" doesn't tell us if this journal is the one being cited or a different one that may have been referenced by the citation.
  • Not sure why you chose to cite a self-published podcast, how can we be sure this is reliable? I would have gone for the Raw Story source over this.
  • I think if there's a performance art piece mentioned by the artist on their website, but in no reliable, secondary source, we shouldn't consider it notable enough for inclusion. This isn't an article to advertise every one of Blackmore's performances. I don't think there's any good reason for us to be citing Blackmore's website, other than for the most basic personal details like their pronouns.
These are the main issues remaining for me. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The following changes have been made, diff here, including items relevant to criteria 2B:
  • CV ref deleted. Add Free Press ref that explicitly mentions graduate of UMich
  • Added sources for each of these points ("November 26 date, the Snaketivity scene, the statue unveiling, the "Subversive Autonomous" performance, the abortion pill on Fox and the abortion information campaign"). Added that Nov 26 was Thanksgiving, as noted by new source. Added response of the Fox host and guest to taking the abortion pill. Added a sentence about responses to the pill campaign.
  • Changed wording of departure from TST, adding ref to Hail Satan? and in the citation -- quote by Blackmore that confirms TST revoking their membership. Also added TST reason for removing Blackmore.
  • Added name of journal
  • Replaced the femmecult podcast with the Raw Story source
  • Deleted reference to the performance that did not have an adequate reliable source.
I believe this covers all the main issues mentioned above. Thanks again! ProfGray (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's still some sentences only cited to Blackmore's website. (e.g. "In the Detroit version [...]"; "Blackmore created another [...]") If no reliable, independent sources can be provided for this information, these lines should be removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Changes made:
For the "Detroit version..." there is an independent source for this sentence, except that the source did not identify Blackmore as the person holding the sign. So, the citation for that source now has an embedded explanatory note, appended, that links to JB's website photo of JB holding the sign.
For "Blackmore created another" -- there is the Ms. source for this sentence's information, except two relevant details: to credit the other artist and the source of hangers, so that crediting comes from the JB website. These details are not self-serving and I see no reason to doubt them.
Thank you, ProfGray (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jex_Blackmore/GA1&oldid=1251493106"