User talk:StephenTS42/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Norwalk

Welcome back to Wikipedia. Per your edit summary and my desire not to edit war, I'm responding here. ECode is a website that hosts city laws. Norwalk's is hosted there, as is the village of Briarcliff Manor. The website is considered a reliable source as it is merely a host for official municipal ordinances. The ordinance on Norwalk's city seal is located here. The same seal is also used by the City of Norwalk's official Twitter account, if you want extra proof. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Kindly place your editing suggestions or comments in the article Norwalk, Connecticut talk-page; not on my user talk-page. Follow the rules! If you don't want an editing war, don't start one!——→StephenTS42 20:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

1. 1. I didn't start any edit war, don't accuse me.
   2. When a user has a problem with another user, it's usually best to address it on the user's talk page, however either forum is perfectly acceptable.
   3. Please stop attacking me and actually address my complaint. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sez you! No one is accusing you of anything. If anything, it appears a problem lies with your authority being challenged. Since you are not an administrator I suggest you seek the advice of one on this matter. What's best is to discuss editing suggestions or comments in the article's talk page; not on this user page. No matter what you find to be acceptable you do not set policy for such within Wikipedia. As a 'resident' I believe you should know this. Moreover, your 'argument' that the city seal for the article Norwalk, Connecticut must be 'official, has no grounds. I would be more than happy to read your arguments to the contrary, but not in this talk page. The Wikipedia article 'Norwalk, Connecticut' is not 'official'. There is no rule, regulation, stipulation, consensus or tradition within Wikipedia that any image used in Wikipedia articles must be 'official' or otherwise. The image above the seal, Norwalk City Hall, as well as all other images in the article, are not 'official' yet you do not complain about them. If an image passes Wikipedia muster it can be used whether you like it or not. I will not yield to any further bullying. I will not discuss this further in this talk page. Do the right thing.———→StephenTS42 23:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:JJBers. Don't spam talk pages again. —JJBers 20:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

My talkpage

For the last time, please stop spamming warnings on my page, these actions will get you blocked if you continue. —JJBers 21:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

April 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent failure to assume good faith and spamming warnings on another editor's talkpage - previous warnings do not seem to have had any effect.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for unblock Comment

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).

StephenTS42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I had made several attempts to be reasonable, to compromise, to act in good faith and assume the good faith of others. I believe this block was done hastily and did not follow the necessary protocol for blocking. This editor has worked dilligently to improve articles in Wikipedia by following its policies and regulations. I consider all criticisms of my work and have compromised in most cases to avoid arguments and editing wars. In light of the contributions I have already made I believe this block is not justified. This block appears to be biased as there is only one complainant involved. I respect now and will continue to show respect for the work of my fellow editors within Wikipedia, nevertheless I believe I should not have to tolerate the level of harrassment, vandalism and disrespect leveled at my work by doing nothing. If I make a mistake, and instead of having the wrong explained to me, I am threatened with being blocked or being told of some non-existent policy I failed to adhere to then I suggest the blocking policy itself stands in contrast to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I have tried to seek help down several dispute resolution avenues within Wikipedia to no avail. I believe my contributions are valuable to Wikipedia and would like to continue doing so. Thank you for reading this.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You haven't addressed the block reason of spamming warnings to the other editor's talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2017 (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.

After seeing this unblock request, I would recommended reading WP:OWN. —JJBers 01:28, 18 April 2017 (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).

StephenTS42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Regarding 'spamming warnings': Every time I placed a warning in 'other editor's' talk page it was deleted without explanation. I had numerous reasons for placing those warnings, but not for spamming. As one warning was deleted I merely replaced it. I had speculated about the reason for the deletions, but it seems now as though it was a baiting strategy. Thank you again. ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages, and it's taken as an indication that they have read them - and your repeated re-addition constitutes harassment. Your suggestion that removing the warnings was baiting you is way off the mark, and you are not going to get yourself unblocked until you understand what you were doing wrong and can convince a reviewing admin that such disruptive behaviour will not continue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I just want to add that I've looked back on your recent interactions with others, and your approach seems somewhat confrontational and aggressive. You need to tone it down and assume good faith a bit more, or you could be receiving lengthier blocks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2017 (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.

@StephenTS42:
1. In no way I was trying to bait you.
2.You put 6 warnings in a row on my talk page the first time, which is spam, and continued to re-add them, even when told to stop.
—JJBers 02:06, 18 April 2017 (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).

StephenTS42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Editors may be allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages and that may be taken as a indication the warnings were read is understandable, but their removal does not indicate they were not read either. I had no reason to believe, or not believe, any of the warnings were read. Each of the warnings were unique in regards to what was wrongly done. Warnings to stop (other editor's) vandalism, disruptive editing, lack of good faith etc. regarding my contributions was the only defense I had against an onslaught, but that's beside the point. (please review the article 'Norwalk, Connecticut's' editing history). I wish to also emphasize I am in no way blaming anyone for any wrongdoing. I am merely explaining what happened. I remain unaware of any limit to the amount of warnings that can be placed, read or not, on another editor's talk page. How would I have known whether my message was getting through? That especially when the warnings were being removed so rapidly. As I wrote above, I speculated the reason for deletion(s) including the possibility of being baited. Speculations can be dangerous but they are not written in stone and certainly not grounds for the punitive action taken against me. Had I been aware of any restriction to the number of warnings one editor can place in another's talk page I would not have done so. For that I plead ignorance to such a regulation with lesson learned. If there is no such regulation regarding the number of warnings one editor can give another then I plead innocent of wrongdoing in the absence of such regulation and request this block to be lifted. Thank you for reading this!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We need to be convinced your behaviour will be significantly different if you are unblocked. At the moment, it's clear that would not be the case. Yamla (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2017 (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.

• How would you have known whether your message was getting through? You Assume Good Faith, which is one of Wikipedia's core principles - and something you seem to be severely lacking in doing. (In fact, your accusation speculation that the editor removing the warnings was baiting you was quite outrageous, and I'm still as stunned by it now as I was when I declined your previous unblock request.) I suggest you re-read that WP:AGF policy page (you have read it before haven't you?), and consider adjusting your unblock request to address your unacceptable behaviour, because I really can't see an admin accepting it as it stands. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC) (Modified according to comment below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC))

---
One unblock request withdrawn for the sake of redundancy.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2017 (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).

StephenTS42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

With all due respect: If it is clear my 'behaviour' needs to significantly change please explain how, and by what means, it would not be the case, at the moment or otherwise. Thank you and have a nice day! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Explained sufficiently below. You've exhausted your appeals, talk page access revoked for the duration of your block. Max Semenik (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2017 (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.

Alright then... —JJBers 13:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's getting to the point that we need to revoke talk page access for the duration of the ban... —JJBers 14:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Also for administrators reviewing this unblock request, see the previous ANI that led to a block. —JJBers 14:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Observation: I've just had a read of Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut, and while there is certainly discussion going on, I see big differences in the tones used by different editors. I see, for example, JJBers and ɱ discussing things in a civil manner, but StephenTS42 responding with condescension and sarcasm. And even on this very talk page, the first section above shows a perfectly civil approach being met with a snarky response. That approach has to stop, or the next block is likely to be indefinite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your observation. Can you tell me when I will be allowed to defend what I wrote? ———→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to respond to anything anyone says on this talk page right here any time you want. If you wish to continue discussions elsewhere, you will have to wait until either your block expires or is successfully appealed - and I do not know how long it will be before an admin reviews your latest unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Oh? I thought you were an 'admin'! Thank you for welcoming me to respond to anything anyone 'says' on this (my) talk page. Perhaps you did not notice or read beyond that first section, but my 'approach', as you put it, had already stopped and I have apologized for it. Now I apologize again for having had a 'tone' in my previous responses. What is it called when someone's past behavior is brought up in order to judge their current character?

Yes, I am an admin, but as I have already reviewed one of your unblock requests relating to this block, I can not review any further ones. It would be unfair to you - you deserve fresh eyes. Also, I'm not trying to judge your character, only to review your behaviour - I don't care what your character is like (and neither should anyone else at Wikipedia), just your behaviour. And it is usual to consider an editor's recent behavioural history when reviewing blocks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I really think that StephenTS42 doesn't want to accept the fact that he was uncivil, at least from his comments. —JJBers 15:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: Uhhhh, why did you make two unblock requests in a row? —JJBers 16:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we also auto-decline the latest one, since it's basically a question... —JJBers 16:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC) (refactored)

@JJBers: No comment!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: With all due respect: I did not ask for an explanation for how many times an admin can review an unblock request. I did not ask if, or imply, (that) you were judging my character. I asked a question though it remains unanswered. I don't think you were being evasive but will propose that jumping to conclusions is right up there among the List of cognitive biases and can cloud the judgement process a skosh. Nonetheless, thank you for your answer. ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but after that somewhat pedantic (and rather condescending) response, I really don't know what you are asking of me. So I'll not try any further - good luck with whoever reviews your requests. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Thank you for well-wishing my future reviews with "good luck". I asked you if you knew what it is called when someone's past behavior is brought up in order to judge their current character. 'Circumstantial evidence' is what it's called and it means (in US law) "Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait." In simple terms it means anyones past behavior cannot be used to prove (or consider) guilt or innocence in a current situation. So, when you inclued comments about my behavior such as "snarky" with "condescension and sarcasm" it puts a brightly prejudicial light on and against my defense, on my request to be unblocked; all that especially coming from an administrator. You see, my comments in the past have nothing to do with the current charge against me. Therefore I believe it is within my rights to ask you to remove your comments above as well as your unblock review as they will influence the judgement of all or any future reviews. I don't deserve this heavy handed and highly punitive block and I continue to plead innocence of wrongdoing. I hope you did not find this comment 'pedantic' or 'rather condesending'. I have no qualm with you. I hope that will remain as such! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: I don't believe US law applies to this type of situation, even then, many former police records do apply in some way how long of a sentence can/will be. —JJBers 16:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: No comment! —→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I'm with you. When you asked me what it is called when someone's past behavior is brought up in order to judge their current character, I assumed you were implying that was what I was doing and you were challenging me on it - I'm happy to accept that was not your implication. Considering the circumstantial evidence thing, a Wikipedia block is not decided purely on the current offence (real or alleged), but also on an editor's history - whether the current situation represents a repeated example of past behaviour, for example. As an aside, previous behaviour is actually used in courts of law when deciding on the penalty to impose, and though Wikipedia blocks are preventative rather than punitive, the extent of a block and its likelihood of being lifted early is almost always swayed by previous behaviour. As for removing my comments and my unblock decline, I will not do so because I believe them to be fair and honest. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Good for you! I admire your steadfastness: it is your perogative! I too must also stand my ground. While I'm sure you meant to write that Wikipedia blocks are preventable, not preventative, I must ask how this block could have been prevented in light of the haste taken to apply it. Was I to assume good faith and do nothing while the complainant ran roughshod over my contributions to the article setting it back in time by months? When was any explaination, any discussion, made for the reversions? And would that not be a glaring demonstration of disregard in assuming good faith? Given the time between when I made those repeated warnings (my bad), which I now know is the wrong thing to do, and the initiation of the block... where was the standard protocol for blocking followed? By itself, my behavior placing several warnings ought to be a minor offense that should have been dealt with no more than a harsh scolding; not a two week block. So, the block was not punative? There is much more story to this story that can be seen from glancing at an article's history. My past behavior had nothing to do with my behavior at the time and if that is taken into consideration then it will be with a heavy prejudice. (Seems like there is a dog barking up the wrong tree) Meanwhile, I continue my plea of innocence and request this block be lifted. Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not mean to write that Wikipedia blocks are preventable, not preventative, I meant what I wrote - they are intended to prevent disruptive behaviour. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: I'm perfectly allowed to comment here, so stop. Also stop with this slang, it makes it look like you don't think this serious. —JJBers 19:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Thank you for that clarification. (It must be my American English to blame.) Of course blocking an editor is indeed a preventative act: it prevents disruptive behavior in Wikipedia. In fact, it prevents all behavior in Wikipedia. It is reasonable to block an editor from behaving disruptively. But should the first recourse to disruptive behavior be to block rather than to reason? Placing warnings in another editor's talk page may very well be considered disruptive. However they are easy to delete whether the message was read or not. That was my mistake, my error in judgement in doing so. A minor disruption, but a disruption nonetheless, I agree. What I should have written is that Wikipedia blocks can and ought to be prevented, as in to be kept from happening, or preventable by discussion, explanations, reasoning or some kind of counteraction before they are put in place. Which brings me to my next point. I am a reasonable, reachable, teachable, dissuadable human being. I believe in the policy of assuming good faith. Yet none of these methods were attempted before the block was hastily placed on my account. Therefore in the absence of what should have been standard protocol for placing a block on my account, by skipping past any other counteraction, I stand my ground for claiming this block was punitive, an act of bad faith and unjust. I've been at this now for far longer than any time I would have spent on any article I have worked. I need to take a break, get something to eat and rest.

I'll be back after that. Thank you for reading this.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: Please don't refactor my comments. —JJBers 17:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

StephenTS42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18076 was submitted on Apr 19, 2017 13:31:03. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. I understand you're blocked, but stop moving my talk page edits —JJBers 22:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: your email

I'm sorry, but I don't feel like unblocking you or returning your talk page access would be the best course of action. You said all the right words, however the content of this very talk page shows a different picture, one of battleground attitude and refusal to get the clue. I think in this situation deeds are way more indicatory than words. I recommend you to sit out your block. As usual, any admin should feel free to overturn me. Max Semenik (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Fourm Shopping

You might not want to constantly go to different sections of the site. That's called fourm shopping. And that's not allowed on Wikipedia. —JJBers 19:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notice

After this edit, I'm requesting that you don't edit my talk page expect for ANI/AN3 notices. This means no warnings, or inappropriate messages. —JJB^ers 10:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@JJBers: In light of your insolence, I see no reason to grant you any favors. Regardless of those circumstances, warnings are never inappropriate, they are acts of courtesy incumbent upon all editors in Wikipedia to issue other editors that cross the lines of respect. Request denied!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Calling me a savage is wildly offensive, you would've been indef'd on the spot if I came back to find it. Hopefully, you regret it. —JJB^ers 14:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you serious. This is less of a warning and more-of weekly spam. —JJB^ers 14:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers:No one called you a savage! GET OFF MY CASE!!! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you not see the irony of posting "this edit war must stop!" while making an edit to revert someone furthering the edit war?! Remember, it takes at least two to edit war so you can easily stop the war too. only (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Stephen, you're on rather thin ice here, and you're certainly not doing yourself any favours in light of the current ANI thread regarding your conduct. It doesn't matter who started this, or who got "the last word", I suggest that you leave well enough alone for now. Edit something else for a while? Primefac (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've been following this ever since it started and it's doing no-one good to point fingers and call out another editer which has been done throughout it all. I'm not saying anyone is wrong I'm just suggesting that we all take a breather, calm down, and discuss this peacefully. Dinah In Wonderland 15:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Favonian (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Extension of TBAN

I have closed the ANI case regarding your recent conduct at the Westport page, and have extended your TBAN to all pages relating to Connecticut, broadly construed, for a period of six months. If you have any further questions or clarifications, please let me know either here or on my talk page. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thank you for extending my TBAN and expanding it to all Connecticut articles. As I recollect, the original TBAN was for 6 months which would have ended sometime in December and now that you have extended it for another 6 months wouldn't that add up to a one year ban ending sometime in June 2018? Also, how long will his majesty's block be?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I reset the clock, so it's six months from today (22 Jan '18). Primefac (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox images

Hi, the reason for altering your edits was that the page had been flagged as needing attention by being automatically entered in Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. The text you quoted is for images that are not in infoboxes. The relevant section is:

See also: Wikipedia:Image use policy § Displayed image size When adding an image to an infobox, thumbnails should NOT be used. Infobox templates should implement the InfoboxImage module to help with formatting of images so simply supplying the file name will work. For example, to use File:Image_PlaceHolder.png, you can simply use image = Image_PlaceHolder.png. Captions should be specified with the caption parameter. Every infobox is different and the documentation for the infobox in question should be consulted for the proper parameters to match the image and caption. If InfoboxImage is not yet fully implemented in the infobox you are using, the same alt=, upright=, title=, etc., parameters may be called using Extended image syntax, calling frameless, not thumb.

I've changed the seal image as you wanted it but that means the page is now reentered in the Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images as you can see in the hidden categories section at the bottom of the page, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Much thanks. I will work on a solution to that dilemma in my sandbox.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Another editor has adjusted it, the images all look good, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atlantic306:Thank you for pointing me out to the image use policy. I think I have solved the dilemma, but as usual I am open to suggestions, especially yours because yours were so well.→→StephenTS42 (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atlantic306:By the way, and just let you know...the text you quoted about the use of thumbnail images in infoboxes can be found in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, not in Wikipedia:Image use policy. Nonetheless, I respected and followed your advice anyway. Thanks again!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, will correct the link I use Atlantic306 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)