Talk:Thomas John (medium)

Links in "See also" section

Numerous wikilinks seem to have been copy-and-pasted to the "See also" sections of various pages despite not having any particular relevance. I have removed several links from the "See also" section that did not have any direct relevance to the article subject other than to implicitly disparage the article subject, which would be a violation of the WP:BLP policy against unsourced content. I believe that that the remaining links should be removed if they are not relevant either. WP:SEEALSO says that "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I do not think that lists of other mediums are relevant enough without some actual connection, or else any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: You are going way overboard on the medium articles you are removing material. The MOS states: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics..." I maintain that the bios of other mediums and articles covering the general topic are, for certain, tangentially related. RobP (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop it Wallyfromdilbert. I returned the link to Mark Edwards as it is relevant, and you deleted it. This is disruptive and unwelcome behaviour. CatCafe (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How is the link relevant? You can't just state it as a fact with no explanation or sourcing. Stop restoring unsourced BLP violations and instead engage in a discussion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Claiming See also links are "unsourced BLP violations" is nonsense. What is unsourced? Be specific. I am following the guideline as I stated. Seems pretty clear. Let me repeat it from the MOS on See also: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. That's what these are. If any are not tangentially related, explain. RobP (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How are you claiming the links in the "see also" section are not unsourced? Also, regarding wikilinks to other mediums, under your interpretation, any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. Can you explain how that would make sense as a guideline? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

What is your def of unsourced? They are not links to external articles. They go to Wiki pages which have their own sourcing. RobP (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing has to be done on this actual page, and wikilinks to other articles are not considered reliable sources as per WP:V and WP:RS. Also, the articles I removed from the "see also" section do not mention this article subject. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

OMG. Of course the articles linked to "don't mention the subject of this article." Wikilinks - esp those in See Also - rarely do. That's why they are "tangential." You cannot be seriously arguing that you can only wikilink to articles that mention the ones linking to it, can you? RobP (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

When the links have no relevance other than to disparage the article subject, then they need to be sourced per the WP:BLP policies. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Wally, you are disruptive editing, edit warring, uncivil and do not have concensus. Your behaviour akin to a vandalism. Stop it. CatCafe (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not how WP:VANDALISM works here, and you should stop because that can be considered a personal attack. How about instead actually responding to what I have said? Also, what New York Times article are you referencing in your edits? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise to you for any offense. You are also making personal attacks. As you were the one who started an edit war refusing to discuss on talk pages and you now have 3RR and no concensus because of your uncivil behaviour, please sort out your own problematic editing behaviours first. CatCafe (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Peacock

Lots of stuff like this on the page - “My life mission is to bring peace of mind, comfort, joy and sometimes laughter to those who long for contact with a loved one who has passed and I am grateful to be able to make connections nightly, because our spirits never die.”[14] Isingness (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Isingness: "Lots of stuff" is not very helpful. Mind you I wrote this article - and did not add all of the Peacock stuff, but am glad to remove it. Good now? RobP (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, doesn't like there is much left after the clean-up. Isingness (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Huge Enormous Massive BLPvio

None of the sources describe them pleading guilty to a felony, or being convicted of a felony. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The mountebank dropped his last name and re-branded himself as a medium after pleading guilty to theft and computer fraud. "It was basically something I did out of necessity," John told The News last year. "I've turned my life around since then."[36] 99g (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC) edit by blocked sock

The word felony is suspiciously absent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

"Thomas Flanagan, also known as drag entertainer Lady Vera Parker, has been jailed on two felony counts" [1] Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Charged, convicted or pled guilty seems to be missing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You can't synthesize that he's a felon from the two sources. You need a source saying he pled to felonies. Charges often change after arrest and during plea bargaining. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The mountebank dropped his last name and re-branded himself as a medium after pleading guilty to theft and computer fraud. "It was basically something I did out of necessity," John told The News last year. "I've turned my life around since then."[2] 99g (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC) edit by blocked sock

Where does it say felony? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

{ScottishFinnishRadish, why do you repeatedly claim the sources do not say he plead guilty? That's plainly an untrue statement by you. 99g (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC) edit by blocked sock

I'm saying that it doesn't say he pled guilty to a felony, which it doesn't. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't grasp your current argument considering your reverts have been accepted and the other the other editor tidied up the section. The. sources do say what you said they didn't - both in their own words - and any synthesis has been sorted in the article. Currently seems like WP:soapboxing to me. 99g (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC) edit by blocked sock

My current argument is that we can't call a BLP a felon without sourcing. You'll notice that when I edited the article originally I left the information about his pleading guilty. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I have struck out edits by a blocked sock. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Criminal history in lead

There is very little sourcing for this, and I think it is undue weight in the lead. The other information on the lawsuit is probably undue as well, per the very few sources covering it, but it's like to start by at least removing a minor criminal matter with only a few sources mentioning it from the lead. Thoughts? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the lead, as it does not seem to be an issue which he is primarily known for, even though it's in the body. For comparison, the lead for Alec Baldwin does not mention the Rust shooting incident, and George Washington's mentions almost none of the famous battles he fought or led. Undue weight for the lead indeed. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed it for now. We'll see if there is any other input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought I should add here that I edited the lead to include TJ's confession to being a scam artist. I regard this as VERY relevant to the work for which he is best known, which involves convincing people that he has psychic powers (which are, in fact, non-existent), so as to take their money. The deceptive nature of his primary occupation has been exposed in the NY Times article, and thus IS relevant to the information regarding his past conviction, even though he has not been convicted of a crime in regards to the psychic scamming exposed by skeptics in the NY Times article. I agree that the article must not allege or imply crimes unless reliable sources state this. The sources I used to support this edit are sources that have already been accepted for use in this article, and rely on TJ's own confession, not on claims made by anyone else against him. --Substar

I checked the links you provided, and I could not find anywhere in the two articles where it says he was "self confessed". As it failed verification I've removed the changes from the lead. - Bilby (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is consensus against using Thomas's full name as natural disambiguation, given that it does not appear to be commonly used in RS. (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Thomas John (medium) → Thomas John Flanagan – Natural disambiguation, and avoids issues regarding the uncritical use of "medium". BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Are there actually any reliable sources that use the name Thomas John Flanagan? Do we even know that's his name? Actually, it's here. It's not the common name, nor does he use that name anymore, but I'm not strongly bothered one way or another. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:STAGENAME. Nearly all reliable sources use "Thomas John" exclusively (he starred in The Thomas John Experience, not The Thomas John Flanagan Experience). Natural disambiguation is only appropriate if the alternative is in common use, albeit not as much as the preferred title. I think "medium" is a fine disambiguator: Merriam-Webster defines it as "an individual held to be a channel of communication between the earthly world and a world of spirits" and Collins as "a person who claims to be able to contact and speak to people who are dead, and to pass messages between them and people who are still alive." Another possible disambiguator term is "(psychic)" as seen in Category:American spiritual mediums and Category:American psychics. We can call someone a magician without implying they actually do supernatural magic tricks, and can call someone a medium or psychic if that's what they are most prominently known as. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: This page was boldly moved from the proposed title last month. BilledMammal (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment If I had my way I'd rename it John Thomas. But of the two proposed options, I have no preference. Rp2006 (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't use people's full names if they are not commonly used. Natural disambiguation has generally not been held to trump this convention. Neither is there any reason not to use "medium" as a disambiguator (quite a few articles are disambiguated as "medium" or "psychic"). I personally think it's a load of rubbish, but that's what he claims to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

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.

Miss Gay New York America pageant

@BilledMammal: You don't know it's the same person? What if there was a video of Thomas John (the TV medium) saying so himself like here.? And what's with the sanction warning slapped on my Talk page as soon as I edited this (a page I wrote in the first place)? Seem like more harassment. Rp2006 (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Then the Facebook link, if uploaded by him, can be used as a reference to support a WP:ABOUTSELF statement, though the lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources raises questions of WP:DUE. And the notice ScottishFinnishRadish placed is a required notification, not a warning. BilledMammal (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Required? So I am required to add the same to anyone I see editing this (and other bio pages)? Am I supposed to add it to the Talk pages of you two? Am I being delinquent in not doing so yet? Rp2006 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Because I added it to your page, it shows that I'm aware of the discretionary sanctions. The awareness "expires" after a year. If you think that someone editing BLPs should be aware of the sanctions you're welcome to place the notice on their page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Ds alert shows all the ds alert templates, if you're interested. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me its a great tactic to win an editing argument - esp with a newbie editor. It looks scary and they will likely back off, letting the editor who placed it on their page win by intimidation. Rp2006 (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Luckily your not a newbie, and I assume you'd like to know that your edits to BLPs can be subject to arbitration enforcement, as can my own. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

So if you knew I already knew that I knew it -- which after this past week (month?) of commentary, how could I not -- then why did you feel it necessary to remind me just now? On the page that, in fact, I wrote in the first place. Looking out for me now? Rp2006 (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know that you knew it, and I checked to see if you had received a notification within the past year before posting it, which you hadn't. I'm not sure what the issue is. I've received such notifications myself, it's a normal part of editing areas subject to sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't see the video, as I am one of the Facebookless, but we can't use primary or self published sources in a BLP. If it was WP:DUE for inclusion there would be coverage in reliable secondary sources. The discretionary sanctions alert template is just to make you aware there are arbcom discretionary sanctions in effect for the topic of BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Drag career

Is this worth mentioning? There are no sources dealing with it on it's own, it's just mentioned in passing in a few sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote this article and included the information, of course *I* think it’s pertinent. In fact it’s the only legitimate thing the subject does. Why would you exclude it? Not having it here makes the guy look even worse than he actually is. And, by the way, I still dispute the recent edit that removed the information about his recent participation in a contest.

A source like that can be used if it’s non-controversial as far as I understand it. Rp2006 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You can never use a SPS source in a BLP, unless it's written by the BLP itself. Also, keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to talk pages, so saying it’s the only legitimate thing the subject does is not really the best. We can all agree that mediums aren't real, and no one speaks to the dead, without attacking article subjects. Is there any significant coverage of their drag career, or any mention that it was a career and not a hobby, or pass time, in reliable sources? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, both with your assessment of SPS and the BLP talk page requirement. "the only legitimate thing the subject does" shows a cognitive bias which isn't helpful when discussion content about Wikipedia. As far as the mention of drag career, there are two reliable secondary sources outside of the skeptic community that talk about this. I believe it is worth mentioning; however, there is no reason to have a separate heading for it. This is something that could be mentioned with his career, but a simple sentence saying he was such would suffice. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Do those sources actually say it was a career, or a hobby or what have you? If someone's hobby was mentioned in passing in a couple sources I don't think we'd include "Doe fished in many ponds around Chicago." I was unable to find any real coverage, other than mentioning in passing "performed as a drag queen in the Chicago area." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The exact wording used in the Wikipedia page is obviously open for discussion, but semantics about how we word it shouldn't stop it from being included. My only contention is simply that it deserves a mention. New York Daily News says, "He spent years performing in drag around Chicago under the name Lady Vera Parker." The New York Times says, "he was Lady Vera Parker, a drag queen in Chicago who later got into some trouble when Thomas John Flanagan (his legal name) was charged with theft, fined and sentenced to probation." So even if you don't want to say it was part of his "career", there is always room to place in personal life but the fact it is covered in two major sources would deserve a mention unless you can contend WP:UNDUE or another WP:BLP guideline should prevent it. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd be a lot more amenable to having it in a personal life section, rather than a career section. And, at this point, it would be the entire personal life section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I took a closer look and think there is a bigger issue with the page currently than the one sentence about his drag performance. First, we tend to stay away from "controversy" or "legal" sections. Since the references says he performed in drag and talks about changing his name after the arrest documented in the legal section, I would suggest keeping it in career section and moving the arrest information there to. Remove the two headings ("drag career" and "legal") and simply make it two sentences under career section. Also, the career section has too many subheadings. Not sure why it is broken down like that for something so short. Just my observation. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If you check the history, you can see I've been pruning and moving. It's my hope to pull that all into a single Career section at some point. The "criticism" section used to be a heading level higher, and was significantly longer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The "see also" section is also concerning as it stinks of WP:COAT.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that was on my list. The same "See also" section was placed in a number of article. I've trimmed it from some. Haven't gotten around to it here, yet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it now. See this as well. The same "See also" section is all over the place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that is entirely contrary to the purpose of WP:SEEALSO. It basically makes a conclusion by saying that the topic of the article is in fact a fraud. Conclusions don't need to be drawn as I think most people already find the practice conducted by mediums to be skeptical and we don't need to state such.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"I think most people already find the practice conducted by mediums to be skeptical and we don't need to state such." Really? Science says mediumship is a con, and Wikipedia should as well.

But, I suppose you are technically correct regarding "most people." Polls show only 40-45% or so of the population thinks psychics and mediums are for real... so yes, that is a minority... by a whopping 5-10% or so. To hell with what those people believe. Go and strip all Wikipedia psychic/medium articles of the educational/critical content necessary to provide the actual scientific facts on this matter to people looking for answers here. Intentionally or not, you folks are handing a huge win to con-men everywhere. The psychic industry destroys people's lives - and if thsi attitude stands, the practitioners will be gloating. Plus, they didn't even have to pay anyone to try to do it for them. 20:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Rp2006 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I have very low tolerance for anyone on Wikipedia who can't be WP:CIVIL. Do NOT make any accusation against me or other editors without evidence. Based on your tone, I am not sure you are here to be neutral but rather WP:POVPUSH. Now back to the discussion on content. I don't believe you clearly read what I wrote. I never said mediums were cons or not cons. I said that most people are skeptical. You threw in some survey about people who feel they are cons which fails logic. I also do not see anything in your comment that contributes to this discussion by way of policy or guidelines. Its more of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am open to hearing more of a policy based argument if you will provide one. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

By discussing her drag career, or removing see also links? I'm not sure what we're doing to hand a huge win to con-men everywhere? Also, again, keep in mind WP:BLP applies to talk pages, so referring to BLP subjects as con-men is really not good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm the one pushing for leaving the drag queen material intact. Clearly this is about purging pertinent topics in See Also. Regarding my remarks re. character of the subject. This is not like talking about a political opinion or sports. If you can't be honest about people claiming unproven supernatural abilities and doing so to make a living, well then... Same goes for people attempting to persuade people that vaccines are dangerous during a global health crisis. Do we need to play at fair and balanced in every area of life? I thought Wikipedia came down on the side of science and reason. Maybe not. Rp2006 (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

We can come down on the side of science and reason without using insults when referring to BLP subjects. It takes no effort to have a modicum of respect for a BLP subject. We'd also make a lot more headway in discussions about these articles if you assumed some good faith on the part of other editors. Even after cutting huge swathes of the prose in this article, SI is still cited, and it's still more than 50% criticism. An article doesn't have to be an over-the-top hit piece with BLP violations to make it clear that someone isn't actually speaking to the dead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"If you can't be honest about people claiming unproven supernatural abilities and doing so to make a living, well then" - WP:VNT based on acceptable sources. I see at the moment that sources used for this as well as similar articles are being called into question so hopefully that gets decided at Arbcom soon. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

"Claimed psychic medium" or "psychic medium"

The short description was recently changed to the latter, but my thoughts are that if reliable sources have not verified that he has psychic powers then we need to introduce "claimed" or a similar term, to avoiding us making the WP:EXCEPTIONAL assertion that he does have psychic powers. BilledMammal (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That's where I come down on it, too. Purported, claimed, or something similar. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you. For once we are on the same page. No - he is not a psychic medium, because no one has proved they are psychic, or can channel the dead (a medium). I like claimed, self-proclaimed, or something indicating their claim is BS. Note that John Edward has purported. Rp2006 (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

And whatever is decided here, should be applied to other BLPs of these people. Let me point out that WP:EXCEPTIONAL disallows "Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science..." Rp2006 (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And whatever is decided here, should be applied to other BLPs of these people. As the remover of the 'claimed' descriptor, this is why I did it: the term is often excluded from short descriptions of similar people. Does this mean that everyone in Category:American psychics or Category:Psychics should be described as a "claimed" psychic? After all, nobody has ever been able to prove that they are a psychic or medium. (Historical people who claimed to be psychics or whatnot have just as much evidence for their claims, so I see no logical reason why it should only apply to BLPs). Just to clarify, my only desire here is for consistency throughout Wikipedia articles – I have no truck with people who claim to be able to talk to the dead, but it seems odd to single out some mediums to be 'claimed' and others not. —AFreshStart (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

A project-wide decision like that would need a more centralized discussion, maybe at BLPN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

And... I would extend this discussion to the lead sentences for such people, arguably much more visible than the SD. "Here it currently is: Thomas John Flanagan...is an American psychic medium." Whereas John Edward's is: "John Edward McGee Jr. (born October 19, 1969) is an American television personality, author and a self-proclaimed "psychic medium." Rp2006 (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I would extend this discussion to the lead sentences for such people, arguably much more visible than the SD. I have no issue with 'self-described' being in the lead description (I would prefer to avoid the scare quotes though). But the short description should be short, and all mediums, psychics and the like are "claimed". It seems unnecessary to note. —AFreshStart (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Except... one additional word does not make a short description too long. And, as I mentioned above, a huge % of the population believes these abilities are real. No need for WP to reinforce the perception just to omit a word to save space. Rp2006 (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Short descriptions are generally recommended to be less than 40 characters; adding "claimed" or "self-described" will still be within those limits. I would agree with avoiding the scare quotes though; we are already saying that this is a claim, not a fact, and there is no point in also implying it.

However, probably worth bringing this discussion to BLPN, as it goes much further than just this article. BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes... scare quotes seem unprofessional. Rp2006 (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh... There is also the Occupation entry in the infobox. Rp2006 (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that MOS:CLAIM says, o write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, which is exactly what we should do here. The page is called "Words to watch", not "Words to avoid". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That's fair enough. But there are hundreds of articles out there talking about psychics and mediums that don't use the term 'claimed' in them, and have been stable for quite some time now. I'm not against including it, but by this logic, all those articles should have 'claimed', 'purported', 'self-described' or whatever in their short descriptions too. I just think there needs to be some site-wide consensus on this issue, rather than local consensus. —AFreshStart (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPN is probably the place to start such a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)