User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2020/July

Active discussions

You have a new mail

I have sent you an email to your Wikimedia mail id. Please do check it. Adithyak1997 (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Bot potentially overzealous about IMAGERES?

@JJMC89: Hey there, JJMC89! I uploaded an image, File:Microsoft 1984-Scott McGregor, Charles Simonyi, and Gordon Letwin.jpg a few days ago. Later that day, JJMC89 bot rightfully tagged it with {{non free reduce}} and clued me in to WP:IMAGERES. I downsized the image to bring it in line with the policy (far as I can tell). The policy calls for images to be "no more than about 100,000 pixels (0.1 megapixels)". The new version I uploaded was ~128,000 pixels. I tried making it smaller but you start to lose the subjects' eyes so their faces really start to lose meaning. I included this rationale in my comment alongside the new version upload. But the bot tagged the image again today—is 100,000 pixels a strictly enforced community standard and should I find a way to crop the image/make it smaller, or is there a way to mark images as already reviewed in some way for the bot? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Whatever the issue is with the size of the file, I believe the file has more serious issues with WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS) that need to be sorted out as well. There’s no real sourced critical commentary about the photo itself in the article it’s being used; moreover, while there’s obviously some historical significance to the three persons in the photo coming together as a group and to the things they accomplished, the same cannot automatically be said about the photo itself per WP:ITSHISTORIC. There’s quite a lot of detail about why the file is being used in its non-free use rationale, but none of that seems to reflect how it’s being used in Scott A. McGregor#1978–1998: Software industry. The interpretation of the photo given in the rationale is basically a kind of image-related WP:OR unless it can be shown that’s what reliable secondary sources have said about the photo. The way the file is currently being used seems more WP:DECORATIVE than not, and I think it would have a hard time establishing a consensus in favor of keeping the file if it ended up for discussion at WP:FFD. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Shrinkydinks: {{Non-free no reduce}} is used for instances like this one.Jonteemil (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Shrinkydinks: Just letting you know that I've started a discussion about this file's use at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 July 5#File:Microsoft 1984-Scott McGregor, Charles Simonyi, and Gordon Letwin.jpg. I've also posted a notification on your user talk as well as a courtesy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: and @Marchjuly: Thank you both very much! For both the answer I was looking for and things I could learn even though I wasn't looking for them initially. I'll read the policies closely and see if I can develop a better article & fair-use rationale for the image as a result. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

We the People (American TV series)

As others have noted, the bot, twice now, has removed a cropped, low-res, pre-1978 promotional image of a TV-series logo and the show's deceased host. There is a appropriate FUR at the image page. Despite the bot's claims, I can find nothing inadequate or inappropriate about the use of this non-free image. Perhaps someone could explain what purportedly is missing from the FUR? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Tenebrae:. What's on the file's page is Template:Information, which is techinically not the same thing as a non-free use rationale. That's the reason why the bot keeps flagging the file for a WP:NFCC#10c review. What the bot is looking for is an actual link to where the file is being actually be used. You can fix this a couple of ways: One would be to replace the "Information" template with Template:Non-free use rationale and another would be to write out a non-free use rationale per WP:FUR#Non-template. Either of those things should stop the file from being flagged for review and being removed by the bot. However, doing either of those things that doesn't automatically make the file's non-free use policy compliant, but it should stop the bot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
One other thing is that you might want to ask for opinions about this at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC to see whether it might be OK to re-license as Template:PD-US-no notice instead of non-free because the way you've describe the image seems like it might be possibly OK to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Good advice! Much appreciated. I'm on it.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a sandbox, not an article in mainspace for readers

I use my sandbox as a temporary scratch pad, white board, etc. In this case, it was a drop point for a portion of an article so I could run reFill on it without running reFill on the entire (huge) article. What was your purpose in editing my (otherwise worthless) scratch pad content? Would it be more appropriate for me to blank my scratchpad when I'm done using it thusly? Normal Op (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Normal Op: You can not include non-free images in any namespace outside of the main, including the user space. As File:Captain William Clark Monument in 2018.jpg is non-free and does not exist on Commons, you can't have it be implemented in your sandbox, even if it is just as a "scratch pad" for you. In the future, simply comment out the file in question while you are doing your scratch edits if you must have a non-free file present while you work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot Problem

On Image:KVWC-AM 2020.png, your bot has tagged the image for image reduction per WP:IMAGERES three times now.

Per WP:IMAGERES, images with a 4:3 aspect ratio to be shown at 320x240 pixels (common for screenshots from TV, films, and videogames), while allowing common cover art to be shown at 250x400 pixels. The image in question is on the low end of both of the highest numbers listed, it sits at 300x372 pixels. Image reduction is not necessary. In fact, I have reduced it even further on the page it's used on by using the image at "200px", which shrinks it even further.

I ask that you, please, fix your bot to recognize the policy it is quoting, recognize the image is within the specified widths in the quoted policy, or whitelist the image in question. Thank you. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:07 on July 4, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome#BlackLivesMatter

@Neutralhomer: 300 × 372 > 100.000 so the reduction request was AFAIC correct.Jonteemil (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm within the policy, it's not. Fix your bot or I will ask it be turned off until it is. - NeutralhomerTalk • 02:57 on July 6, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome#BlackLivesMatter
@Neutralhomer: How can you been withing the policy if the policy says that the file must be below 100.000 pixels and your file isn't?Jonteemil (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: 320x240 pixels and 250x400 pixels are what is listed, not 100.000 pixels. I'm at 300x372, below BOTH of the high numbers listed. I'm below 320 and I'm below 400. So, go bother someone else. Image is within policy. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:12 on July 6, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome#BlackLivesMatter
@Neutralhomer: You've completely misread WP:IMAGERES. The image needs to contain no more than about 100,000 pixels based on its dimensions. Per this helpful tool, using the examples given, 320 x 240 actually could be increased to get to 100,000 pixels and 250 x 400 is right at 100,000 pixel. You can't take both high numbers and mash them together to claim you are under. Your file is 300 x 372, and in order to comply, it has to become 284 x 352. I've gone ahead and done that and uploaded it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: I'm not sure where the 100,000 pixels thing is coming from, still, but sure, let's add two completely ramdon criteria and put them together for...reasons or SCIENCE! Now, according to GIMP v.2, the image in question has exactly "111,600" pixels. We are arguing over 11,600 little teeny dots. I think we can find something FAR more interesting to do with our time. Also, I'm still within the highest numbers listed. 2 outta 3 ain't bad. :) Oh, by the way, Go Steelers! :D - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:05 on July 6, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome#BlackLivesMatter
@Neutralhomer: I don't know the history or background, but as IMAGERES states, most images should be 100,000 pixels or less, and that anything higher than that needs to have an extremely strong case to justify it having any higher resolution than 100,000 pixels. Yes, the version you had was 111,600 pixels, but even though it's not over by much, it still is over the limit that has been set. Hence the extremely small reduction to get it to the limit set at IMAGERES. Also regarding I'm still within the highest numbers listed, in the future if you are uploading non-free images, I suggest you simply disregard the given dimensions in the example, and just use the tool I linked earlier. That way you can input your current dimensions for the image in question, and see if they are at 100,000 pixels or need to be adjusted. 100,000 pixels is what you need to consider as the image's limit, not the example dimensions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Nobel Team (Halo)

Hello! I've just created a new draft for the Noble Team. Any help would be greatly appreciated! The Optimistic One (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Bot Wars

I noticed there is a conflict between User:JJMC89 bot and User:ErfgoedBot. ErfgoedBot is programmed to put pictures that it IDs as National Register of Historic Places into Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Images without refnum so they can be properly identified with reference numbers in a template. The picture in question - File:SherbornMA_SewallWareHouse.jpg - is a WP File and does not support the Commons template. This picture is 'non free' (NFCC#9), so once ErfgoedBot puts in the list, JJMC89 bot removes it. They are now caught in an epic battle between putting in the list and removing it from the list. I don't know what the solution is. Any insight as to how this can be resolved? Thanks Einbierbitte (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

ErfgoedBot is blatantly and repeatedly violating policy, so I've blocked it from editing that page. The operator needs to fix the bot for it to be unblocked. — JJMC89 02:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Leftover redirects after draftifications

Hello JJMC89, we have yet another new user who thinks substandard articles need to be draftified because their own article was draftified. The user moved eight articles on bands to drafts, some of these articles were made in 2005 and have 1000+ views/month. The leftover redirects were all deleted.

I assume R2 deletions are done in batches, but I'm wondering what could be done so that we catch these obviously bad draftifications. There was recently a thread about these overlooked draftifications at the Village Pump, but nothing came of it.

Like, the leftover redirect from Xutos & Pontapés in mainspace to User talk:Xutos & Pontapés is obviously incorrect and should have been reversed rather than deleted. Kukl (band) was created in 2005 and so the draftification should have been reverted instead of the leftover redirect being deleted.

So, I'm wondering, does CAT:R2 fill too quickly for an admin to check over the history each redirect, and if so, would it be better to propose a technical solution where Twinkle checks the history and warns the admin before deleting the leftovers of bad moves?

Thjarkur (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how fast the R2 category fills. I definately should have caught the user talk one. For moves to draft, I don't generally check if the move was appropriate since the redirect needs to be deleted regardless. — JJMC89 03:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Bot ignoring cat moves

The bot is failing to process category changes listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working#Move but it's not obvious why. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Digging deeper it seems to be something in this one:
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 2

When at the top of the section the bot skips the whole lot; when further down the bot processes the ones before it. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

And now it's finally been processed. I have no idea what unblocked it. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I fixed the issue in the code but wasn't able to reply here. — JJMC89 03:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


Hey, I'm not being rude, I was just wondering about making all-time favorite movies, and I trying to replace with the file: texts from movies in this wiki, I'm just working on it, I'll clear things out from the red texts, and changing with a File:StarWarsMoviePoster1977.jpg. I'm being nice to you. --Stephenfisher2001 (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCC#9, you are not permitted to use non-free media on your userpage. — JJMC89 03:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


@JJMC89: Please do not delete Draft:Oliolie, instead delete the backup that was in my sandbox. The Draft:Oliolie has had changes made to it since I took the backup and placed it in my sandbox.

And, wow, going forward I will backup any data I submit to Wikipedia on my own storage if using the sandbox area is going to result in all of these headaches with removed data. I know you mean well, and *I* misunderstood that my sandbox page was public. But, I would have thought that my use of the sandbox area vs the Draft: namespace page would have been clear -- instead the page with the most recent edit was deleted? Thank you! Wikin00b1979 (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I only deleted the some extraneous revisions after performing a history merge. The relevant history is still available to you in the page that has been moved to your userspace. — JJMC89 03:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I was banned?

It shows that my account was blocked recently after I made a legitimate edit of an article. Idk why but I do remember vandalizing a page when I was in 5th grade when I was a stupid kid so maybe I was ip banned? I have since graduated high school and just want to be able to contribute to this incredible free source of information as free information is something I strongly believe in and am passionate about. I'm just a bit confused on why I was banned recently and I don't mind if you don't wanna lift it I'm just confused. SalehiLiam (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This account has never been blocked, so I don't know what you are talking about. — JJMC89 03:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


I assume the recent category move to Category:Removed statutes was meant to go to "Removed statues" (not "statutes). I further assume that your trusty bot can fix that as I certainly have no idea how that works... - SummerPhDv2.0 05:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This was fixed via WP:CFDS. — JJMC89 03:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I Can See Your Voice categories

Hello guest, i've responded you that your editing that did in the ICSYV Dutch, German and Romanian counterparts. Can you read this discussion about groupings of ICSYV categories? Makoy Canlas (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not perform the edits in question, my bot did. You will need to take up your concerns with the editor that closed the relevant CFD since the bot was implementing their instructions. — JJMC89 03:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please leave token of removals

Could you ask your bot to kindly leave something like Note: Nonfree image removed behind? Otherwise it makes nonsense of discussions. Ideally the note would include a diff or something of the removal so editors can track down what happened. Or here's another idea: add the colon in front of File: e.g. File:Queen Elizabeth.jpg -- I assume you know what that does. (Admittedly there may be some issues to work out there.) EEng 04:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I've implemented switching to links for some cases in talk namespaces. It will be deployed once I have time to test. — JJMC89 03:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Bot and CFD retain

@JJMC89: There's another round of categories the bot will only remove the template on the first one. It's not clear what the problem is at all. Examples include Category:GAA people from County Antrim and Category:GAA people from County Armagh. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: The issue was that the bot didn't know what |action= should be used for {{old CfD}}. For the first category that was listed, it firured it out by parsing it from the discssion but couldn't for the others. User:JJMC89 bot III/tasks/CFDW has the details on what the bot is looking for on the working page. — JJMC89 03:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Twitter images

Hi, hope you're doing well. Is it allowed to upload images posted on Twitter to Commons Wikipedia? I want to use this image on Saifi Sopori article. Thanks TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

In general, you won't be able to upload images posted on Twitter. Most of them are not licensed under a suitable free license. (There are some accounts have all posts freely licensed though.) For the Tweet in question: If you are talking about the whole image, then no since the prose is almost certainly not freely licensed. If you mean the headshot, that would depend on when/where it was origionally published. The Twitter post does not give any details about it. — JJMC89 03:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot question

Hi JJMC89. I'm just curious why your bot hasn't picked up in the two NFCC10c violations in Granger Smith; there are other NFCCP problems with this two album cover being used in that article, but I'm just curious how your bot goes about finding files that have the NFCC10c and NFCC9 issues. Does the bot only pick up certain files at a certain time, or does it catch all such violations throughout Wikipedia at the time it makes one of its runs. Mind you, I'm not complaining; just trying to get a better feel for how bots work. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Marchjuly. It didn't pick up on those due to the way it is currently programmed. Criterion 10c reqires that a link or title be present in the rationale. (I plan to improve the way it works with the NFUR templates (only |Article= will count) and have done most of the coding work, but I still have to find time to test the new code to make sure there are no false positives before I deploy it.) In this case the title is present even though that isn't the article that the NFUR is for.
There are three parts for detection and removal.
  • Reporting: The bot goes through all of the non-free files and reports any criteria 9 and 10c violations that it finds. Currently, this happens roughly every three days.
  • Fixing: The bot attempts to repair rationales for 10c violations, usually from page moves or incorrect/partial disambiguation. This is scheduled before each removal run.
  • Removal: The bot runs over the pages on the violations report plus non-article space criterion 9 violations based on the wiki's database replicas.
— JJMC89 02:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the overview. i'd completely forgot about this. Your bot does sure make cleanup a lot easier. Removing all the 9 and 10c violations manually often took quite a bit of time. Anyway, I removed those files since there also was in issue with WP:NFC#cite_note-4 that even adding a boilerpoint rationale wouldn't have resolved. Just for reference, something kind of similar came up today at WP:MCQ#Albert Pike Memorial which was related to the wrong link being provided in the rationale. I'm wondering if there's any way for the bot to sort through that kind of issue, particularly for single-use non-free files, since removing the file will make it an orphan that possible could end up deleted per F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The only real options are to always change the link for single use files or to not remove single use violations. I don't think either of those are a good idea. — JJMC89 07:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Understand. F5 tags need to be reviewed by an admin before a file ends up deleted so maybe that's enough of a check to catch any which might've been removed by mistake. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Pointing out

Greetings JJMC89. Its been quite a while since I created the page gudban. I was under the impression that copyright vios were removed. User Buidhe seems to have been under the same impression. If you are aware of any existing vios, then I'd be glad to assist. But I am eager to figure out the status of the page promptly. Thanks. Auxerre dejufan (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It will be reviewed by one of the editors that work at WP:CP, which won't be me. You can try asking one of the regulars there to take a look. — JJMC89 06:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


In this edit:[1] did removing the useless "Wikipedia project page" short description restore the useless and wrong "Wikimedia project page" short description? If so, would a blank short description work? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Both are useless for their intended purpose. The latter is more vague but not wrong. (Wikipedia is a Wikimedia project.) You can't set a blank short description, but you could write a useful one. — JJMC89 07:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

About File:PDVD 038.JPG

Hello. I noticed that you removed File:PDVD 038.JPG from List of Tom and Jerry characters. Accordingly, the reason you gave was "Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding." However, I believe the file complies with the non-free content criteria as used in the article, because:

  • Butch and Toodles Galore are two of the notable charcaters in the Tom and Jerry cartoons (but it is known only by certain people),
  • As far as I know, there is no single image depicting all or most of the characters of the cartoons, esp. the Hanna-Barbera era cartoons (1940s to 1957 era), and
  • It is minimal in use because it is limited to this list character.

Nevertheless, if your decision to remove that image is based on this policy, I respect your decision. BTW, this clarification is based on that image and not on other images that I assume you also removed. Thanks for your reply. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

How to use non-free files in drafts in AfS for notability if they are only permitted in articles

The JJMC89 bot hit some drafts I submitted to AfS with "WP:NFCC#9: Non-free files are only permitted in articles" messages. So, if that citation is needed to meet the notability and quality bar so it can be approved as an article then what action is to be taken? The jpg file in question is an organizational chart that shows that the text added to the draft about the governance structure of the organization the article is about is accurate and true. Due to coding on the page the jpg comes from, a link directly to a page instead of the jpg may not work. --Ian Korman (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

My mistake. I now see your bot removed the image file and not the adjacent citation to an image file. Please update your bot to leave more details to what it does i.e. be extra clear of its actions such as "image file removed". --Ian Korman (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Karateaniket

Hi JJMC89. Can you take a look at this since you're an SPI clerk? I've got no idea why it was tagged for speedy deletion because the page seems to be exactly where it's supposed to be. I went to WP:SPI and started a new investgation per "How to open an investigation". I followed the instrucitons and the page was created. I'm going to assume that whatever the problem is that it's good-faith error either by me or the editor who tagged the page for speedy, but something weird is happening. Somehow the sentence "Please move this page to the WP space. Thanks. Regards, Marchjuly (talk) 10:09 am, Today (UTC+9)" got added to my original report and I don't know how. I don't think I've ever signed a post "Regards, Marchjuly" and I can't image any reason why I would ask this to be moved to the WP space if I put in the WT space by mistake. Something really doesn't seem right here, but perhaps there's an explanation for it all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Something really weird is happening. I guess it's possible that I somehow opened that new SPI on the talk page by mistake, but I have no idea how that happened. I also, once again, never sign anything as "Regards". I just created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karateaniket the exact same way I did earlier before, and now things seem to be OK, but the talk page is perplexing. In the past, there's been an attempt to impersonate me (MarchjuIy), but that doesn't seem to be the case now. Very strange. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I've deleted the talk page. That text was from the preload, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Inputbox blank report for ordinary use for IPs, which i've just tweaked. That preload gets used if you use the second sumbission box at WP:SPI. — JJMC89 07:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for checking on that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Tweak CFD Retain

Hi, please could you tweak the way your bot processes the CFD Retain section?

From these instructions the bot entered "keep" rather than "no consensus";[2] perhaps it should have skipped those two lines pending clearer instructions (e.g. "– No consensus to merge").

For info, I have now added a visible link to your syntax page from that section on CFDW. – Fayenatic London 10:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, the bot has not been processing Retain requests at WP:CFDW since my note above, even though Timrollpickering and I think the syntax is compliant. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I've updated the bot to adjust the behavior. It wasn't processing the section because of the link that you added. From the linked page, [all wikilinks] must be to a CfD page or a category. The bot will not process the rest of the section if any other wikilink is found. I've transcluded the bot information instead. — JJMC89 05:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you! – Fayenatic London 15:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

FFD link question

Hi JJMC89. Can you figure out why the "this file's entry" in the FFD template added to File:The Arrow of Time artwork.jpg is targeting WP:FFD#File:The Arrow of Time artwork.jpg and not Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 July 26? The other files being discussed on that same day are linking to the latter page. Did I muck something up when I added the FFD template to the file's page? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. You have a typo in the parameter name: |logo=|log=. — JJMC89 23:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for finding that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karateaniket

I've added another account to this SPI. If this one is also CU confirmed, then that seems to clearly indicate that the person (or persons?) behind these socks has no real intention of slowing down. So, I'm wondering if it might be better just to ask for WP:RPP since they might give up if they're unable to edit the article. I'm not sure if PP is applied in cases like this, and if not then maybe you can suggest another way to deal with this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2020/July".