User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 116

Draft:Ram Satpute

You tagged Draft:Ram Satpute for G12 (copyvio). It is currently not a copyvio, so I have decliend the tag. The talk page comments suggest that an editor removed the copyvio content. But I don't find anything that looks like a copyvio in recent versions, including the one you tagged. I looked so i could do the appropriate revdel. Can you please indicate what you found that was copied, and in which revision? Otherwise I can't do a revdel. Please ping me with any response. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel, The edit that triggered CopyPatrol is:

this one

Son of a sugar cane harvester, R

am Satputdefeated NCP heavyweight Uttam Jankar

The source starts out:

Son of a sugar cane harvester, Ram Satpute is the star of the moment, having defeated Nationalist Congress party (NCP) heavyweight Uttam JanKar

A couple words excised, but a perfect match

I can look into this more later, but I have a meeting in ten minutes, then an errand to tun which will take up the rest of the eventing S Philbrick(Talk) 23:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks I will look at that further. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done REvdel done. I think the degree of copying is marginal for deletion, but since an experienced editor tagged it and there is at least one full sentence copied, I am doing the revdel. Thanks again. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel, Thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

copyright issues problem

Deleted my last editions of Lyte as a Rock Apparently because my ref to Pitchfork violates copyright, but I saw other pages citing Pitchfork (in fact in another part of the same article it continues to do so)

He also deleted paragraphs that had no relationship I don't understand which Nohayunolibre (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Nohayunolibre, It is important to distinguish between referencing, and copying. I haven't expressed any opinion on whether pitchfork is an appropriate reference – it may well be, but when using information derived from a source, it generally needs to be put in your own words, unless it happens to be acceptably licensed, and with exceptions for short quotations where appropriate. When we encounter and edit or a sequence of edits that include a copyright problem it is common practice to do a rollback, which undoes all the edits rather than tease out exactly which words need removal. There is good reason for this and I can go into more detail if you feel the need. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Well actually I tried to mediate in that regard That is why I did not quote the first paragraph of Pitchfork's note, so that it is not an exact copy and it seemed very abundant. But I have no problem shortening it further to respect those rules. In any case, thanks for clarifying the matter for me. Nohayunolibre (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright Rules

I have no complaints about the deletion of anything that violates copyright rules, such as what you deleted in the article Cherokee society, however, if you will notice, you didn't just delete what you felt was copyrighted words but also reverted a dozen or more citations that took hours to source and gather information for that now has to be done again and had nothing to do with the section you felt was copyrighted. Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Tsistunagiska, I had a feeling you would respond that way. It surprises some new editors to find out that the usual practice, when identifying a copyright issue, is to use a tool called rollback which undoes all consecutive edits. I made a point of only doing a revision deletion of the specific edit in question. In general, this would also include subsequent edits but the particular edit of concern was the last edit in that sequence. we follow this practice because it is quite common that if there is a problem in one edit that may be a problem in other edits, or the problematic edit is replacing some material that ought to be restored. I see you have subsequently edited — while I haven't looked at those edits I'll confirm that any of the edits that I rolled back can be restored if there is no copyright issue. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am already re-editing the citiations. If you find that the re-edit of the sections you rolled back are sufficient and do not violate copyright rules then I will take care of the rest. I don't mean to sound snippy. I am very meticulous and detailed and I appreciate the work you do in ensuring the rules are followed while allowing the best information to be provided. Thank you.Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Tsistunagiska, You aren't coming across as snippy. I can readily imagine how discouraging it is to see a lot of hard work rolled back, so I am happy that you understand we have responsibilities related to copyright. I'm not planning to recheck your work, I think it is likely that you are fine. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Thanks for the heads up about moving the history section of City of Spokane Valley to Region of Spokane Valley. You mentioned, "In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved." I am actually really new. (Everyone says Be Bold, and I am trying, but there is a lot of rules to learn.) Is there a way to fix this after the fact? (ie add that note somewhere?) Thanks.--Katrazyna (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Katrazyna, There actually is, although it's not very obvious, so don't feel bad for not knowing how to do it. I think this attitude is with a fair bit of experience who don't know how to handle it.

If you go to Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia and scroll down to "preparing insufficient attribution" (this may be a direct link WP:RIA). it will discuss using a dummy edit to make the attribution after the fact. I hope you will do this. Opinions differ on how important it is to maintain attribution but I think when somebody volunteers their time to create content, the very least we can do is make sure their efforts are properly attributed. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

==Splitting discussion for Turning Point USA

An article that been involved with (Turning Point USA ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Charlie Kirk). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. MaximusEditor (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC) ==

Hey Sphilbrick, This is my first split so any comments regarding protocols would be appreciated. MaximusEditor (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

VARMAM PAGE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varmam

I saw you flagged it a copyright violation, I agree the website is something page removed and yet to add back. But all the content mentioned are from manuscript and I am the author of all the content mentioned there from my Book Varmam - An insight into the ancient system of healing. I agree with the removal for link there for website. However, there was other content that was removed that did not come from the website and its from my own book, which I have copyright certificate.

I am not introducing any subject, since I am the Varmam research guy and varmam is the big sea and Varma Kalai is part of it, I am fine getting this detail of varmam off from Wikipedia, though I need to correct this long back, but someway the other its is removed. since it's like just bring full page down just because of a website link added there and even that website belongs to our association of Varmam in Tamil Nadu, so let me know how this attracts the copyright violation?.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ramesh.sk.babu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh.sk.babu (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Ramesh.sk.babu, I know it must seem like a mistake for someone to identify an edit is a copyright violation if the editor happens to be the author of the material. In fact, it is not a mistake.

There are several issues that must be addressed. One is that while you asserted that you are the author of the material, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, neither do I have any evidence that it is correct. We do not, in general, require proof of identity when creating a username.

As a second issue, even if you jump through the hoops to confirm that the username you are using is attached to the copyright holder of the material, that isn't enough to permit you to simply use the material. We require a specific license from the copyright holder. That can be done a couple of ways, see Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials for more information.

As a third issue, and make sure to address this before addressing the issue above, you need to read WP:COI. is highly discouraged for you to write about yourself or your research, so if you were to take the steps necessary to license the content, that would mean other editors could use it but not you. (I haven't yet addressed the virtual certainty that the source almost certainly doesn't qualify as a reliable source, so probably can't be used by others.)

Sorry this is so difficult, but we do want to protect the rights of copyright holders, and we do want to make sure that content in the encyclopedia can be sourced to published reliable sources.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

House Building Finance Company - revdel request

Greetings. Pinging you because you had previously revdel'd copyvio/promo material from this article. A new user has restored text copypasted from the same source. I've reverted the edit and will warn the user, but this calls for another revdel. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 22:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Finngall, I have a board meeting starting in a few minutes, so won't be able to look at this for a couple hours. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Finngall, RD1 completed. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sveta Nedelja, Zagreb County article revision

Hi. Can you give me more information regarding copyright violation in article Sveta Nedelja, Zagreb County. You have deleted several editions. I don't believe that all editions I made in the article violate copyright rules (e.g. links to other pages, improving info box etc.). I recon, only adding a new text about history of Sveta Nedelja, which is copied (and edited) from the web site of Tourist board of Sveta Nedelja (which is, according to law, a part of town administration - e.g. mayor of town is chairperson of the Tourist board). But I can inform you that I am an employee of town administration, and I am entitled to use that information. Ro0103 (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Ro0103, Yes, I can provide additional information.

It does surprise some editors to see that more material is removed then the material identified as a potential copyright issue. That's because it is standard practice, when identifying a copyright concern, to do what is called a "rollback" which undoes all consecutive edits by the same editor. This is because it is common that in the case of a sequence of edits, they may be edits made after the addition of copyrighted information that make further tweaks to that information and need to be removed, and they may be edits prior to the addition of copyrighted information, that remove other material in preparation for the addition. The rollback tool ensures that the article is returned to the position prior to the sequence of edits including a copyright concern. If we can Confirm which aspects of the edits are not problems, we can help you restore them.

With respect to the material, note that the source has a clear notice at the bottom of the page:

© 2020. TB Sveta Nedelja. All rights reserved. Design by iDEA studio

That notice doesn't include any exceptions that permit anyone to use it.

As an additional concern, an employee of the town, which means you have a conflict of interest and should not be directly editing the article about your account.

Please see WP:COI

We do appreciate that you are more knowledgeable about the subject than many editors and want your input, but the desired approach is to post suggestions for improvement on the article talk page and let independent editors make the changes. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Article hijacking

On 8-22, you did a copyright oversight (the next diff is this). If you look back to the beginning of that editor's edits on that article, you'll see that rather than creating a new article, they hijacked a related extant article. You've got tools I lack. Can you undo the move and roll it back to the last editor? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon, Let me start with a minor bit of nomenclature. At one time I was an oversighter but I relinquish that tool because I wasn't sufficiently active. What you saw is revision deletion.

I'm not totally following what's going on, but I've undone it, so you can sort out what needs to be done. When you are done, if there are still copyright violations in the history let me know and I will restore the revision deletion. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I assumed since it was a copyvio, it would be oversighted. Sorry. The editor took an article on a high school and changed it into an article on the district containing it. It's entirely GF, and the editor appears quite interested in schools, so I'm going to work with him (hopefully) and create an article for the district and improve the one on the high school. Appreciate your time. Be well. John from Idegon (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

September Women in Red edithons

Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177 Online events: New: Women writers | Women in conflict zones Interwiki collaborations: Women of WWII Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

What is the "Copyright issue" with Creative Commons Licence?

You reverted several changes to Joseph Ward (astronomer) with the comment "Copyright issue re https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/3w4/ward-joseph-thomas". I would like to understand what that "copyright issue" is, since the page in question has a CC licence - the exact statement is "All text licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 New Zealand Licence unless otherwise stated." My understanding is that this licence enables the free distribution of the work, so would you mind clarifying what the issue is that you identified? --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, (talk page stalker) we can't use NonCommercial content since we're a commercial site. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 16:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, Moneytrees beat me to it. That license is not compatible with our requirements. It's an understandable error, made by court a few editors. Most villages know that Wikipedia is adamantly opposed to accepting advertising and they jump from this observation to the understandable but incorrect assumption that a license with a noncommercial clause would be acceptable. While Wikipedia attempts to be noncommercial, it specifically wants material that can be used as broadly as possible including commercial endeavors, so the no commercial restriction means it cannot be used. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Moneytrees and Sphilbrick: Ah, thank you for the explanation. I should have realized: material published on Wikipedia is available for anybody to use for any purpose, including commercial use, so a non-commercial CC licence won't cut it. Bugger. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Ward (astronomer) page

Hi Sphilbrick. Thanks for picking up on the copyright issues with the page I recently posted - Thomas Ward (astronomer). I'm new to editing and that was my first project. I'm sorry that I used a reference that violated copyright rules. I'd like to rework the page without those references... many of the newspaper clippings I found, have similar information in them. But... I no longer have my draft page. Is there any chance you can access the version you deleted? If I have to start from scratch, well, so be it. Sorry if this message gets to you twice. I tried to msg from my own talk page but have the suspicion that it didn't work. Also, not sure if you want to take the reference out of the current (old version) of the page, as that's where I originally found it.jepercival (talk) (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Jane Percival, I sent the contents to you as an email. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Vavá

This is the reason why I asked for assistance. Thank you for immediate response. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of open license text

Hi Sphilbrick

I noticed you recently removed some text added by DanSD19, just to let you know it is available under an open license (they released it on Commons), I'm sorry this wasn't clear from the template, I've made some changes to the wording of the template which links through to the license, could you tell me if it makes it more clear? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_product#Sources

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@John Cummings and Diannaa:, Color me puzzled. I am sure I have reverted material copied from that FAO report, but I don't see any signs I edited that article. It looks like it was removed by Diannaa.

Second, while I think it is great to add a template noting the inclusion of CC licensed material, the template refers to CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (an acceptable license) while the source has a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO) license, an unacceptable license.

Am I missing something? S Philbrick(Talk) 19:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick

I've tried to make it clearer in the template now, whilst the license statement inside the pdf says NC, FAO have released the publication on Commons under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO, which you can see by clicking on the 'license statement' link. I separated this out in the template as open license content is often not initially released under an open license and the license statement is not in the publication. Let me know if you have any suggestions of how to make it clearer.

can I double check that none of the revisions of the articles where the text has been added have been removed from the history? I'm not an admin so I can't see anything hidden.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, the user DanSD19 uploaded a copy of the PDF to the Commons at File:Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Key findings.pdf and an OTRS ticket was issued, VRTS ticket # 2020073010003087 which releases the document under a c-by-sa-3.0 license. Please see User talk:DanSD19#Copyright issues for the instructions I gave him for any future attribution from this source. John Cummings, edits that have been revision-deleted have a line through them like you see here. None of DanSD19's edits are currently revision-deleted.

Sphilbrick, should we add a {{ConfirmationOTRS}} ticket to each involved article's talk page? Do you have to be an OTRS agent to add that template? The involved articles are:

• Tropical forest
• Afforestation
• Old-growth forest
• Forest management
• Deforestation
• Forestry
• Forest pathology
• Private forest
• Forest product
• Forest ecology
• Forest cover
• List of countries by forest area
• Forest— Diannaa (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  Diannaa, I don't believe you need to be an OTRS agent to add that template. I think it would be helpful if it were added. If John has difficulties, I can help.

  I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that the copyright holder would place a very clear notice on the document itself, then agree to a different license via OTRS. It would have been so much easier to modify the notice on the document, which would obviate all this work.

  The OTRS permission looks fine, although I haven't independently verified that the person providing the license had the authority to do so. Part of me thinks it would be worth more investigation, but it is labor day weekend, and I am visiting relatives and friends and can't do much immediately. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: and @Diannaa:, the person who shared the files works in the publications department at FAO and is authorised to share the content, I work at UNESCO and have been helping UN agencies share content under Wikipedia compatible open licenses. John Cummings (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings, It has long been astounding to me that the UN holds full copyright, or restricted CC licenses on so much of their output in view of their professed mission. I am happy to hear that you are working with them to make more of their content free for use.

I understand why some copyright holders have to provide a license for text using OTRS – if they are talking about a physical document, such as a book or magazine, there’s no way to change the copyright notice printed on the document, and the license agreement will supercede it. But when a documents is online, why not simply change the license at the source? Using OTRS leads to this awkward issue where the online text very clearly has an incompatible license. It is not reasonable to ask a Copy Patrol volunteer, upon seeing such a clear statement, to wonder if there might be another statement elsewhere superceding it. This mean this situation will occur in the future. If I or Diannaa happens to see someone using the FAO text, we are likely to remember this discussion and accept the addition, but someone else may pick up the notice and they are very likely to miss an explanation in a notice at the bottom of the Wikipedia page. John, if you are involved in using more material, I urge you to include an explanation in the edit summary, but I urge you even more strongly to try to persuade the copyright holder to change the license on the online source material. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

• New partnerships
  • Al Manhal
  • Ancestry
  • RILM
• #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
• AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

• New partnerships
  • Al Manhal
  • Ancestry
  • RILM
• #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
• AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible copyvio at Erwadi

Hello! There is a long-running back-and-forth at Erwadi with the removal and re-addition of a large block of text. It has been revdel'd a couple times already, but there is some discussion at the talk page to the effect that the other page copied from WP rather than the reverse. I can't really tell one way or the other. Since you were the last admin involved so far as I can tell, I thought you may be able to figure it out. Regardless, a lot of the content is unsourced and possible OR, but if it's copyvio there's not much point messing with the existing text. Thanks! PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

PohranicniStraze, I'm not completely sure what has happened — unfortunately the Internet archive isn't much help. However, as I pointed out on the article talk page, the added material wasn't sourced, at least not in the first edit that was reverted. I'll try to watch to see the responses. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

October editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179 Online events: Annual Ada Lovelace Day celebration: Women in STEM Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Intermountain Jewish News updated deleted

Is this the correct way to contact you? A page I worked on a newspaper's page for hours this morning was deleted. I would like a better explanation as all the materials used were created by the newspaper itself then posted on LoC website. If there is a different way to contact you please let me know. I can't even find all the work I did so am a little stressed. Thank you. Msmaddymax (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Msmaddymax, This is the right way. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Msmaddymax,

"...all the materials used were created by the newspaper itself then posted on LoC website"

I presume you are talking about the material that can be found at this site although perhaps you picked it up from some other place. I don't see any indication that the material is acceptably licensed for use in Wikipedia. If you think it is acceptably licensed, explain how and if you are correct, I can undo the removal. (I did not check to see if it was appropriately cited which would be necessary but we can take care of that if it's acceptably licensed. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if this was the right way so I also posted this on my talk page. I am contact there with administrators. I better understand the violation now, though I still dispute it (because I am the one who wrote that essay!). But the main thing is having the info I updated back so I can rewrite it to meet standards. The administrator wasn't certain if accompanying info on the LoC site was considered public domain even though the material on the LoC site is. Either way, I never intended to copy it wholesale. I actually tried really hard to extricate the factual information only to meet Wikipedia's standards. And I also included other sources that were not the LoC page. Anyway, thanks for your response & understanding. If I can at minimum get the previous saves back I will rewrite. Msmaddymax (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Msmaddymax, Unfortunately, this is a little more complicated than your exclamation point would suggest. As you are aware, you are permitted to edit Wikipedia without sharing your real name with us, so identifying the copyright holder on the material is a bit more complicated than you simply asserting that it is you. While we do have a process for licensing material (See Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials) it isn't clear that you should follow that path, because then we run into a conflict of interest issue. You should not be adding material to an article that is published elsewhere written by you. in addition, unless I missed something, you sourced the edit to the LOC entry, which effectively means you are sourcing it yourself not to an independent public source. I'm still trying to sort out what exactly can and should be done, but it is definitely not as simple as reverting be added on the basis that it was material written by you. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Msmaddymax, I see that you have been conversing with @Cullen328:, one of our most respected administrators. I am pinging Cullen to make him aware of this discussion. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I understand the complications. I am confident I can rewrite and meet standards. Hope to do so today. Moneytrees🏝️ told me he'd would email me my previous changes which will help me with having a baseline. Thank you. Msmaddymax (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)