User talk:StrangeloveFan101/Archive 2

March 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.  Guy (help!) 23:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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).

StrangeloveFan101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've made bad mistakes on here, that's for sure. I'm sorry for everything I did. There won't be ANYMORE problems from me. I promise. I've already been through scrutiny, and I learned my lesson. Again, I'm sorry. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no reason to accept this boilerplate request or the more expanded version below. Drmies (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Why has SF101 been banned? GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I'll also remove the rather dramatic things on my userpage. I was just really upset over the outcome of what I did in those moments.
StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)StrangeloveFan101

Hello, StrangeloveFan101,

Since you said earlier today that you were going to quit the project for 3 months, it's unclear to me why you are posting an unblock request immediately after you have been blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: There's a big part of me that wanted to leave. For about all day yesterday, I was frustrated enough with the stupid decisions I made and thought were right at first. I may not be new to Wikipedia, but I was foreign to the talk page disputes and ANI before 3 or so days ago, so just when I thought I was doing something the right way, BANG! I understand why I should've been scrutinized, because like I said, what I did was dumb to say the least. [1] I thought I was seeking a "dispute resolution" at this point, but it completely backfired. It was the wrong place to put that, especially after embarrassing myself already at ANI [2]. This whole thing made me think about leaving, but I still responded to my notifications. I'm not a sockpuppet. And in regards to what I put down on my userpage of being an "Incompetent Troll" (which I felt I was being labeled as on ANI), I thought it'd make everyone on ANI happy (in some victorious way) if I left with that on my userpage. And I thought after I answer my messages, and fix a couple of loose-ends, I would just log off (retire) entirely as that, because I felt that would just haunt me for the rest of my days on here or something. That's why I wanted to leave.

And after all this, after apologizing, getting blocked feels like a gut punch and an "F you" more than anything. This whole experience just made Wikipedia tainted in my mind at this point.

By the way, I am still genuine with each of my apologies, and they still stand.

I'll tag the one who blocked me, @JzG: so they can read it.

Thank you for your time, and I'm sorry for the long message.

- StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

SLF101, please excuse me for intrusion. I have little experience with blocks, but know that in order to get unblocked , you need to say precisely what you consider mistakes, and what you plan for the future. I saw you making a few mistakes, but I don't know if they are what you think of as "I will not do it again":

1. When your message was deleted from a user talk, you didn't ignore, and tell yourself to avoid that page, and think about why.
2. You went to a noticeboard with the same topic.
3. You made a sandbox which will be regarded as an attack page.
4. You made the same basic mistake several times: to write too long posts. It wastes the time of everyone who has to read it.

A appeal might work if you promise to strictly stick to article space, and also to 0RR, meaning that you never revert back something that others have reverted. More thoughts (earlier) on the page of Cullen328 (but I always try to keep things short). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, @Gerda Arendt:.

- StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm afraid this was a good block from Guy. Having already been issued a formal warning from Iridescent, they agreed to withdraw from the project. This was for everyone's benefit, I suspect. ——SN54129 10:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I wasn't aware of anyone telling me to actually get off the site. I heavily considered it to make people happy, but looking back I think that was an error of judgement on my part. By the way, I think Iridescent didn't understand my intention of apologizing. And in regards to what they said here: "...but I can pretty much guarantee that any more of this battleground nonsense, or any further attempts to weaponise our dispute resolution processes in an effort to bully your opponents in content disputes, is not going to end well." they seemed to think I was out to hurt and bully others. This was never my intention. I may have made over 1K edits, but I was a newbie to ANI and "drama boards" here. At first, I honestly thought "C" had a behavioral issue towards me and that other person. And I went the wrong way in trying to apologize. I made the DUMBEST mistake in posting it to ANI, because I thought any dispute resolution could go there. I understand what I did wrong now.

- StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You thought I had a "behavioural issue"? And you expect me to accept your apology? No, this was all engineered in order to rope me in and to try and get me blocked. You have failed. I have no doubt at all that we've met before, with you being under a different user name, and the current Kubrick infobox sanction has fortunately stopped you from causing more trouble. I am firmly of the opinion that you are not here to build an encyclopaedia; you are already "on manoeuvres" with your futile "project", which actually isn't a "project" at all, more something that you have cut and pasted from elsewhere and are intending to use to cause more trouble come August 2021. It is pathetic. This was a very good block indeed. Cassianto^Talk 14:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Like I said earlier Cassianto, saying you had a "behavioral issue" 2 days ago was a stupid mistake on my part. I'm sorry for that. And no, I did not engineer this to have you blocked, in fact you shouldn't be as you are in the right. And this is my only account I've ever had on Wikipedia (or any other Wikimedia Foundation project), and I've NEVER used or made a sockpuppet. Nor have I ever talked to you (I don't believe) about the SK debacle. Another thing is, I requested here (I can't do it myself) that I'd like for that SK infobox project I made to be deleted, as it is extremely controversial. Like I said in my appeal here, I will not respond in any way to those pages. I was wanting to put in my opinion for next year, but I will not. And I'll say it again, I'm sorry for what I did. I meant every word of my apologies. I hope you understand. And if I talk to you on your talk page, post anything in the SK or other articles in dispute talk pages, block me. I give you my word.

- StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)StrangeloveFan101

No, you don't get to pretend I "didn't understand your intention" when I warned you to stop being disruptive (which you immediately followed by flouncing out). Your "I'm a newbie to the drama boards" claim above has prompted me to look at your editing history before, during and after this incident. It's absolutely beyond dispute that three days before the ANI post you were deliberately trying to start a fight over infoboxes and were warned by Floquenbeam and Bishonen about the way you were behaving; you then started the first ANI thread and were warned by Liz about the way you were behaving; you then started your second ANI thread and were warned by pretty much everyone about the way you were behaving; after that you flounced out saying you wouldn't be back for three months, later amended to leaving completely; seven hours after that, you're asking to come back.

I'm prepared to consider unblocking if you genuinely want to come back and be constructive, but you need to convince me (or any other admin who's willing to unblock) that you're not immediately going to revert to the arrogant mindset that your personal opinions are So Damn Important that they should take precedence over long-standing consensuses that (especially in the case of biographical infoboxes) have quite literally taken thousands of editor-hours to reach agreement on. I'm thus far seeing nothing in your comments here to suggest that this is in fact the case; yes, you've grudgingly agreed to stop being disruptive at Stanley Kubrick but that says nothing about how you're going to act on our 49,858,223 other pages. ‑ Iridescent 15:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I am sorry provoking Dr. Blofeld too. And for ignoring all the warnings. All of that was wrong of me too. If I'm unblocked, I will not talk on any more talk page or personal talk pages here or anywhere else with my opinions. If I do that, please block me. What I'd like to do however, like I said earlier in an appeal here: "I will make productive edits, help fix articles (already doing one now via notepad software), and work on the articles I have in draft and sandbox form (excluding the Stanley Infobox Project)." The article I'm working on in notepad is Rochunga Pudaite, because this is one of many articles that needs dire attention. And just so you know, I would love for this to go away so things can go back to normal. There'll be no more problems from me. That is a promise.

- StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• A few things:

  First, I suggest you remove your latest unblock request quickly before it is answered. Too many unblock requests will get this talk page shut down, and that is not a good unblock request.

  Second, I've deleted the Kubrick infobox subpage, per your request in an unblock request up the page.

  Third, it seems to me that SLF101 has been editing fairly undisruptively up until last Wednesday, when they developed a sudden unhealthy interest in infoboxes and the personalities of people who generally oppose them. Unless I'm missing something, there's something salvageable here.

  Fourth, perhaps an uninvolved admin would be willing to consider something like the following:

  • Indef. topic ban from infobox discussions
  • Indef. interaction ban with the people SLF101 has pestered in the last week (Cass, Blofeld, SchroCat, and anyone else I'm forgetting)
  • Stop. Starting. Trouble. Seems like up until a week ago SLF101 managed this; go back to that. New trouble in another area would probably result in a "throw away the key" type block.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

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).

StrangeloveFan101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry for and won't do the following things ever again: * I'm sorry for misjudging a user who's name starts with "C." * I'm sorry for repeatedly messaging them (even when I was apologizing). * I'm sorry for misusing a noticeboard regarding them twice. * I'm sorry for writing posts that are considered too long, as I now understand that it wastes the time of everyone who has to read it. * I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time in general. * I'm sorry for rash desision making on my part. (Reporting someone to ANI twice, saying I would retire for certain. * In regards to this sandbox I made User:StrangeloveFan101/Project: An Infobox for Stanley, I stated and still stand by my statement on there, "With this project, I am not out to attack or harass ANYONE." Since it's such a controversial thing though, may someone please delete it. My intentions going forth: Honestly, I'm not sure at this point. I might leave or I might stay. If I stay though, I will make productive edits, help fix articles (already doing one now via notepad software), and work on the articles I have in draft and sandbox form (excluding the Stanley Infobox Project). Another thing I won't do (or try not to) is provoke others on here. If I do, I'll give a sincere apology. - StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As before. Note that user says maybe next time there will be a sincere apology. Who knows. Drmies (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

I'm a very generous Wikipedian, SF101 & would conditionally support your unblock. Note though - I oppose infoboxes in bios, unless it's world leaders/politicians, royals or sports figures. If you were to badger me on that stance (on a bio), my generosity would fade quickly. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

——SN54129 14:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This is it. I'm done.

I have tried and tried and tried to be calm, collected, and apologetic, but I guess that ain't happenin'! It's clear that NO ONE is "over it" like the block says. No one accepts my apologies and everyone thinks I'm part of some big conspiracy. This whole debacle has given me a headache in a half (my head is hurting from stress), it has taken up all my time thus far today and even worse it has made me short with my family IRL/AFK. I stated my case and no one believes me. Because of this, I'm done. I'm done with defending myself and I'm done with being bullied on here. I'm done with this site.
StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Strangelovefan, did you not see Floquenbeam's comment above? That appears to offer a not unreasonable avenue towards your return to active editing; perhaps consider those four points. ——SN54129 18:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with my esteemed colleague above. You have two admins willing to hear out an appeal (Iri and Floq). Take some time to consider Floq's comment, but go do something else right now. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

StrangeloveFan101, please end the dramatics. There are several admins here who have tried to help you and give you advice but you aren't hearing us.

• First, this is not personal. The aim of Wikipedia admins isn't to punish people or have grudges against you but to limit disruption. You were being disruptive, filing multiple cases at ANI and insisting on interacting with an editor who didn't want to have anything to do with you. You didn't take the hint and continued to push with your apology when they simply wanted you to leave them alone. Asking you to not interact with another editor is not "bullying" you.
• You said you were going to quit for 3 months, then quit permanently, then you wanted to come back immediately and now you have quit again. Can you not understand how strange this looks? My advice is to take a week off and then return and file a well-thought out unblock request that isn't pleading or threatening but just a) stating that you understand what you did wrong and b) how you will avoid behaving this way in the future. Please read the unblock guide first.
• Indefinite blocks aren't infinite. Give yourself some time to calm down and return next week. Wikipedia will still be here.
• Whatever you do, do not create a new account (sockpuppet) and start back editing. If you do so, it is unlikely that you will ever be unblocked.

Good luck and enjoy your time away. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

What Liz said. Chill or take a break. Either is fine, neither is not. Guy (help!) 22:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Leaving Wikipedia is easier said than done. That's one of the things I've learned! And everyone who's given me advice on this situation I created are all right. Come Sunday or Monday, I'll give my full case. And there'll be no more dramatics from me. This whole thing was just stressful in those moments where I said I would leave. Thank you everyone who's offered help.
By the way, could someone undo someone called "Mohitkamboj300"'s edit on Downloaded (film), please. They added a link listing 50 different illegal movie sites. Lately, I've tried to keep watch on that page and undo vandalism like this on the page.
Again, thanks!
- StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Your reaction is a positive sign, StrangeloveFan101. Right now, the world is going through a stressful time and Wikipedia editors and admins are not immune to the waves of disruption happening in most of our countries. I myself, just took two days off from working on Wikipedia because real life needed tending to.

I've found that when stressed, especially stress that comes from conflict with other editors, it's almost always a good idea to take a break for a few days, a week, I even took a six month break when I first started regularly editing when I found myself in the middle of a dispute. I came back each time with a clear head to find that things had calmed down. Wikipedia has now been around for 19 years and it will be around when you decide to return and appeal your block. Take care, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:StarTrekGenerationsPoster.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:StarTrekGenerationsPoster.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The article uses File:S07-Star Trek Generations-poster art.png. Am I the only one thinking the other one is better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Possibly. There is a good reason for the one in use. - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand that reason, had not thought that far. However, the art by itself doesn't really look like a poster, to me at least, the artist will have counted on information in it, and the text - other than the title - is small and almost abstract anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. That's some fair old fanboy reasoning of David Fuch's. Now I'm 40 something and pretty popular-culturally aware, but even I had to look twice: If I hadn't recognised the drawing of JLP, I wouldn't have had the foggiest what the connection to the article was about. Bearing in mind that our duty (etc) is to the reader, it strikes me that we should be angling our articles towards assumptions that the reader doesn't have foreknowledge of the subject. It's also pretty disingenuous of DF to suggest that the text var[ies] from location to location. The important aspects of the text—e.g. basic but pretty fundamental stuff such as "Star Trek" and the names of those in it—do not, and rarely change even in the varient language productions. And it's things like the poster explaining itself (via the text) that make it useful to the reader. Pretty pictures of spaceship-over-eclipse, etc., tells the reader bugger all, and indeed, probably leaves them scratching their heads at what it's actually doing there. ——SN54129 20:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Could the poster I uploaded be added back? David's case for not wanting it didn't convince me either. The guideline for images in film boxes state: "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article." So just the art is really not "the original theatrical poster" (which would have a title, credits, maybe a tagline, etc.). Another thing is, I looked at all the Original Series Trek films, and besides the Motion Picture, it looks like they all just have the art itself. Should this be rectified? There's no reason they need to have just the art. At least no good reason I can think of.

- StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No, that's edit warring. If you want to put the image back then you need to discuss the matter on the article talk page. See WP:BRD. - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I'm afraid I won't be able to do that currently because I'm blocked. Maybe I could do that once I'm not (in a calm civil manner of course). If that doesn't work, oh well, I guess there ain't nothing I can do. Thanks for telling me!

- StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

New unblock request

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).

StrangeloveFan101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry for and will not do the following things ever again:

• Threaten to and/or report other users to ANI (or any other messageboard) without thinking it through and a good, well-thought out reason
• Waste others' time in an unnecessary way (such as a report I hastily send to admins)
• Make hastily-made and rash decisions (such as the first 2 points and saying I'll retire multiple times in a short amount of time)
• Trying to force others into thinking that my opinions are the correct way to think on article and personal talk pages, messageboards, or anywhere else on the site
• Starting controversial pages (such as the "Infobox for Stanley" page)
• Bother other users (I don't want to mention any names)
• Start arguments with other users
• Assume that users are and/or think a certain way

What I will do going forth:

• Make helpful contributions to other articles (such as the Rochunga Pudaite article (I'm working on this now with Notepad), the Blender Foundation’s "open movies," and more (I just gotta find some))
• Help maintain articles I started/created
• Continue working and expanding my sandbox WIPs and draft (Baldi's Basics, the Obi-Wan Kenobi fan film, and Star Wars: Origins)
• Contribute and upload freely licensed content to Wikimedia Commons
• Think through situations to the best of my ability and remain civil if I type anything during those times
• Maintain my civility in general when addressing other users
• Assume good faith towards others
• Listen to admins and other users, especially when they're just trying to help
• Apologize when I do something wrong
• Take breaks when I need to
• Maintain my opinions, but keep them to myself unless I'm asked for it

Thank you for your time.

- StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I suggest you edit a sister project, show that you can do all those things that you've promised above, then request the standard offer here. If you do that, your unblock request will most likely be given a rubber stamp approval. Otherwise, you're going to deal with admins who are exhausted with dramamongering in the infobox wars. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

@NinjaRobotPirate: I said I was sorry for jumping into the infobox wars, and I will not do it again. I just want things to go back to normal for me here. I want to edit again. Please reconsider your decision.
- StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I meant every word of what I said in my request. I want to come back. Like I said, I will not EVER talk about infoboxes on here again. Please let me back in. Why must bad faith be kept toward me?
- StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• SLF101, I'm willing to unblock based on the promises you've made above, if you're willing to add three more crystal clear ones (which I mentioned a week or so ago):
  • Indef. topic ban from infobox discussions.
  • Indef. interaction ban with the people you pestered in last week (Cass, Blofeld, SchroCat, and anyone else I'm forgetting)
  • Stop. Starting. Trouble. Seems like up until a week ago you managed this just fine; go back to that. New trouble in another area would probably result in a "throw away the key" type block.

It seems like it would be a good idea to think about why you think you had this sudden change in behavior after years of gnomish work, but I have no desire to have you post it here; I just think you'd find it a useful exercise. Finally, while this is not a requirement for an unblock, could you please get rid of the <br> at the beginning of your signature? Since almost everyone else puts their sig at the end of their paragraph, it makes it marginally more difficult to figure out who typed yours, when the sig is on a different line. There's a decent chance that's in the sig policy, but I have no desire to look it up, and I'm not asking because it's A Rule, but because it would be helpful. Anyway, let me know if you'll agree to these 3 additional conditions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam I agree with this. Basically this is a case of WP:NCR. All we need to know is that SF101 has come down from the Reichstag, packed away the Spider-Man suit and realised that this was not a terribly good idea. Guy (help!) 08:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, @JzG:, I fully intended to ping you last night to make sure you saw this, and got distracted by something shiny. Thanks for replying to my non-existent ping. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree to your three additional terms, @Floquenbeam:.
Why I had that sudden urge to support infoboxes everywhere, it was mostly confusion at first, but I turned it into a bad situation for myself as you know. And sure, I'll get rid of the break in my signature. I always did that because I thought it looked nice. And @JzG: don't worry, I packed away my limited edition Sam Raimi Spider Man suit from 2002 that's honestly too small for me now. Just kidding, I don't have one of those, but I understand what you mean. I should've realized fighting over infoboxes was not gonna change a thing and just get me in trouble. And arguing with other users would just do nothing but give me trouble too. Basically what I'm trying to say is everything I did that got me blocked was not a good idea. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Another unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

StrangeloveFan101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

For what I said in my last unblock request in addition to Floquenbeam's three terms that I agree to follow:

1. Indefinite topic ban from infobox discussions
2. Indefinite interaction ban with Cassianto, Dr. Blofeld, and SchroCat
3. Not starting anymore trouble
   StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per comments above. Guy (help!) 14:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, going offline for 10-20 min, will unblock within the half hour. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)