Open main menu

Paul Craig RobertsEdit

I removed the content removed by the IP. This content and sourcing was found wanting in May. Please do not readd w/o consensus or unless a favorable decision is reached at WP:BLPN. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra 01:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

OK @Deepfriedokra: The Only Reason I put that Back was because it said that In the source but ok got it Jack90s15 (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jack, you undid my edit on the domed cities, I reviewed the history of the page and saw the content added was vandalism by a user named "Pulakeshi610" and the reference mentioned was redirected to a blog of an individual and the content that was added was self-promoting an individual idea. I could be wrong myself, please let me know what you think about it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.67.177.11 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019Edit

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations openEdit

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Myth of the clean WehrmachtEdit

I see you have reverted my edit of the word "[W]e". The article originally read: The oath said: "we swear that we have neither committed murder, nor defiled, nor plundered. If we have brought suffering and misery on other people, it was done according to the Laws of War".

I do not have access to the reference but assume this was transcribed correctly. In order to turn the quote into two sentences a capital W has to be added. Since it was not in the original quote it needs to be in brackets.

Please revert your "correction".

Thanks

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thank you for Explaining that I put the brackets back inJack90s15 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your deletionEdit

You deleted material summarizing civilian war dead, it is part of 26.6 million total--Woogie10w (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Woogie10w: I was thinking what if we keep three Bullet points and have it Focus on summarizing military dead that way it would make the reader want to read the rest of the page or at least look at part of it your thoughts on that?Jack90s15 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The post-Soviet government of Russia puts the Soviet war 'losses' at 26.6 million, Take out your calculator and add the numbers in that summary. 9.168+2.164+.994+.212+7.420+4.100+1.000+.300+1.3=26.6 million The article covers military as well as civilian losses. This is the summary, part of the lead.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Jack I am retired now. I worked for 37 years as an internal accountant preparing financial statements and reconciling cash accounts--Woogie10w (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Woogie10w: I Can see now havi ng that can help the Reader with the page when summarizing both death tolls. I thought mine would work yours was much better on summarizing the full page. I Thank you for putting that back that Can help with it be coming a Ga article.Jack90s15 (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The 500,000 are a demographic loss for the Soviet military. They are part of the total war dead even though they were not in the ranks. Anyway they have to be counted in the total, we can't ignore them.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Woogie10w: OK I get that in the book it said they were captured but did not specify that they were killed the extra 500kJack90s15 (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
You can verify the civilian numbers, my Russian is OK put not native, so I use Google translate. The 2001 edition of Krivosheev is online [1] Go to section Потери гражданского населения see table 118. Сведения о числе жертв среди гражданского населения СССР в период оккупации Those are the official Russian numbers--Woogie10w (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2019 ,(UTC)
Jack, note well Krivosheev deducts 939,700. In reality that is an addition of the 267,000 died of sickness less the deduction of 994,300 convicts and 212,400 deserters. The 4,559,000 MIA plus the 500,000 reservists less 1,836,000 returned to the USSR is a loss of 3,223,000 POW and MIA the figure cited in western sources--Woogie10w (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I checked Krivosheev's numbers. On pages 164-207 the Army and fleet totals are listed, KIA 5,184,749. Non combat 534,273 and 4,452,346 missing. Add Border troops 159,100 and reservists 500,000. On page 89 hospital deaths were 1,371,504. That adds down to 12,201,982. Deduct 1,836,000 returned to the USSR. Irreplaceable losses were 10,365,982. Krivosheev deducted the convicts and deserters from this total to arrive at the 9.168K. --Woogie10w (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That is a good observation of Krivosheev'Jack90s15 (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Woogie10w: they are correct I Cross-referenced it with the Russian ministry of defense they use the same chart they match the numbers that are used on the page.Jack90s15 (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


I just deleted duplications and unreliable material at Sov casualties. In the past the article was protected to bring a halt of an attempt to turn the article into an attack on Krivosheev by a nasty POV pusher in Russia. If they show up again I will not hesitate to request that the article be protected.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Woogie10w: OK wow I did not know that was the person blocked?Jack90s15 (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
That was a few years ago. Putin passed a law over there to prevent criticism of the governments POV on the war. The cops will knock on their door. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
O wow I did know that for real @Woogie10w:Jack90s15 (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

For real!! Article 354.1 Russian Federation 3. The dissemination of publicly disrespectful infoo listenrmation about the days of military glory and memorable dates of Russia related to the defense of the Fatherland, as well as the desecration of symbols of military glory of Russia, committed in public,shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to three hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of the convict's salary or other income for a period of up to two years, or by compulsory labor for a term of up to three hundred and sixty hours, or correctional labor for a term of up to one year.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


@Woogie10w: Wow I looked it up briefly and you are right https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-178086%22]} Jack90s15 (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow, you should adopt me. Time to listen to BBC and then go to sleep. --Woogie10w (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The BBC has top gear on it!@Woogie10w:

The ProofEdit

Krivosheev pages96-97

Header text Header text
Total 11,285,000
Border Troops 159,100
Died Sickness 267,000
Less
Returned (1,836,000)
Convicts (994,000)
Deserters (212,400)
Krivosheev Total 8,668,400

Case closed--Woogie10w (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Woogie10w: Case closed? can you explain Jack90s15 (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Compare with page 85--Woogie10w (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


@Woogie10w: Krivosheev says 8,668,400 but on the next page it says the higher number is from double reporting ? on page 87Jack90s15 (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Header text Header text
Total 11,285,000
Border Troops 159,100
Died Sickness
Less
Returned
Convicts
Deserters
Krivosheev Total 11,444,100
Header text Header text
Total
Border Troops
Died Sickness 267,000
Less
Returned
Convicts 994,300
Deserters 212,400
"encircled or missing 939,700
Header text Header text
Total pp.96-97 11,285,000
Border Troops 159,000
Died Sickness 267,000
Reservists 500,000
Less
Returned (1,836,000)
Convicts
Deserters
Total 10,375,000


On pages 164-218 Krivosheev lists the detailed losses for each of the 54 Army fronts and Naval fleets (not including border,security troops). Irrecoverable losses add down to (5,184,749 killed in action, 534,273 non-combat deaths and 4,452,346 POWs & missing). He also lists the following data separately 1,102,800 died of wounds in field hospitals and 1,836,500 POW who returned to the Soviet Union were deducted from the missing. Not included with the 54 Army fronts and Naval fleets are the losses of 159,100 border and security troops and 267,000 died of illness in field hospitals. The figures for POW & missing do no include an estimated 500,000 reservists captured by the enemy after being conscripted but before being taken on active strength.Included in the figures are 994,300 convicted by court martial and 212,400 deserters --Woogie10w (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Just one more thing, as Columbo would say, if you go to page 237 1.368K POW were returned to USSR. No doubt the 436K imprisoned were not included. The 135K executed, 423K penal units and 212K deserters are included with the detailed losses for each of the 54 Army fronts and Naval fleets--Woogie10w (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


@Woogie10w:if this information is in the book why does it get criticize
no criticism only I look at the details not Single statistic--Woogie10w (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Woogie10w: I mean other people who criticized his work when that number in his book?Jack90s15 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Jack, on Wikipedia we have a NPOV and present all sides of the argument. It is not our job as editors to decide which POV is correct. If you are looking for the correct set of Soviet war casualties, well there are opposing viewpoints. Study them and you decide off Wikipedia which is correct.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


@Woogie10w: I have it intrigues me how there like 60 different answers for this questionJack90s15 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


@Woogie10w: I am glad you edited the article, you prompted me to review the article. Over the years editors from Russia have attempted to push the claim that the death toll was 40 million.
что на самом деле прямые людские потери составляли около 16 млн. человек, из них 11,5 млн.- военные и 4,5 млн. - гражданские.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


@Woogie10w: Summing up all of the above components of direct civilian casualties, to which the term "victims of war" applies without any tension, we determine their total amount at least 4.5 million. Man.Jack90s15 (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Jack I want to read the Russian please.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
BTW these machine translations are not the final word, only a guide.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Woogie10w: I know But when he is talking about the civilian deaths he states that Суммируя все вышеприведённые составляющие прямых гражданских потерь, к которым без всяких натяжек применим термин «жертвы войны», мы определяем их общее количество величиной, как минимум, 4,5 млн. человек.Jack90s15 (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jack90s15: Thanks Jack.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Woogie10w: at least now the article is a bit more ready to become a Ga article!Jack90s15 (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

DS noticeEdit

 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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I would suggest you not to use any Russian language sources, unless you know Russian and can evaluate reliability of these sources. My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

In RussiaEdit

I mentioned Putin's law to silence critics of the official position on the war. These people are serious,trust me. I just checked Russian Wikipedia, they removed any criticism of the official POV on the war. Russian nationals can edit English Wikipedia and Russians abroad can edit as well. I say they are serious because they lost 27 million persons in the war, many millions were victims of war crimes.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


@Woogie10w:wow that's something Jack90s15 (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Woogie10w is right. He is a more knowledgeable contributor than me on these subjects. I can only add that Russian WP is completely controlled by the Russian government. It does not mean all pages on Russia-related subjects on ruwiki are bad. Most of them actually much better than in English WP. The contributors out there "fix" only a number of selected pages that are highly relevant to Russian politics and history, and if they receive instructions to "fix" these pages. Some pages could be fixed though simply because of the current propaganda efforts on Russian TV (people are terribly brainwashed). This is basically a matter of common knowledge. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Woogie10w: @My very best wishes: that is very unsettling Jack90s15 (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Myth of the clean WehrmachtEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Myth of the clean Wehrmacht at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

why would they try to hack your Pc?Edit

One- Get a list of my Email contacts and Email content. Two-Put malware on my computer to track my on line activity. The Russian Security Service may be able to read G-mail activity in the West if they have broken the security encryption. That is why they have Elint satellites. In any case they can monitor the activity of IPs in Russia. They tried to hack me since I was in touch with an IP in Russia. That makes sense, they need to monitor the on line activity of Russians who correspond with persons in the West. The security services in the west do this also.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

tin foil hats can help with this. MPS1992 (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
This is for real, no tin foil hats [2] If the NSA can read your E mails you can be sure Putin's crew has the same capability. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
One is rather better funded than the other. And also has the advantage of jurisdiction in the locality. MPS1992 (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
You forgot to add Snowden is in Moscow, BTY the NSA budget is secret--Woogie10w (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it is best not to alarm editors unnecessarily. Could you perhaps instead link to Wikipedia articles which cite reliable sources about the actions of Russian agencies, please? Also I would suggest that you avoid getting in touch with IPs in Russia in future. Finally, I note that Edward Snowden is not happy to be in Russia, since he cannot there obtain Krispy Kreme donuts. MPS1992 (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Link to Wikipedia article which cites reliable sources about the actions of Russian agencies Internet Research Agency--Woogie10w (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Myth of the clean WehrmachtEdit

 On 14 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the myth of the clean Wehrmacht persisted in Germany until the 1990s, when it was eroded by the Wehrmacht Exhibition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Myth of the clean Wehrmacht. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Myth of the clean Wehrmacht), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archivedEdit

 

Hi Jack90s15! You created a thread called HTTP 404 at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


Milhist coordinator election voting has commencedEdit

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal information (reply)Edit

I posted some info about myself on my user page. Other than that, I would rather not discuss it. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: OK I respect that I hope you have a good night or day wherever you areJack90s15 (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!Edit

Hello, Jack90s15. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

AEEdit

Please, comment in your section only. Move your comments from TTAAC's section asap.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:STALKEdit

Please do not follow my edits, only to blindly revert them without proper discussion. For example, you never edited this page [3], but followed and reverted my edit in a matter of minutes. Same here. Here and here you quickly reverted my edits again, although you did edit these pages before. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not stalking you the other two pages I follow the other one you told me to look at so that one I was watching and the other one I came across browsing Wikipedia so that was a coincidence I get notifications when people change the pages I watch that's why I'm fast with itJack90s15 (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it will be clear to any unbiased admin that your interest to this article was dictated to your general interest to the topic.
A couple of advises. First, please format your posts properly (in a way I've done). that will make your posts readable, and you will not look amateurish. Second. Try to be cautious and polite in your responses and edit summaries (so far, you are, however, you may lose patience in future, and that may be used against you in future).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Paul Siebert: Thank you for the input I was on my phone when typing that buy my concern is will this be Handled ?

Jack90s15 (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Please note that you continue following my edits, for example here. I commented because someone discussed my edits on a talk page of an administrators. No one mentioned you. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not following you I checked back on the closed case and I was curious as to who the person was then I came across thatJack90s15 (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Please check the policy. My very best wishes (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
that isn't the case I am stopping blatant POV pushing and I don't like. protecting sourced information that is an academic JournalsJack90s15 (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories

A suggestion about your ANI reportEdit

Hi Jack90s15, could I suggest you remove your recent ANI report for the moment. I tried to read it, but found it incoherent. The formatting is way off, and I can't follow your line of reasoning, or even understand specifically what your are complaining about. I suspect other editors may find it difficult to follow as well. If you take the time to rewrite it, it would stand more chance of success.

Just my 2 cents, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the report. As TMC states, it was incoherent. In addition, you failed to notify any of the editors you mentioned in the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way markEdit

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019Edit

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jack90s15 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

There was pov pushing happening with another editor so I reported it and another user Reverted the pov edits. Then an IP started reverting back to the pov pushing edit that was made on the page I reverted them. but I didn't break the three revert rule I reported the IP as a potential stock of the user because the Ip was reverting Back to that edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&action=history I have been continuously fighting vandalism and disrupted editing and sock puppets I have helped an article reach good article status. I have gotten about five sock puppets banned from the site, I watch the recent changes as much as I can to revert vandalism I was awarded to barn Stars for fighting vandalism and disruptive editing and sock puppets. I am requesting to be unblocked and given one chance only to prove that I am competent enough to continue. Yes I admit I'm not good with writing but I have been continuously fighting disruptive editing and vandalism and sock puppets. I am here to protect Wikipedia and build it as my past shows with fighting all three of these detrimental problems to the project. There are many editor's that have seen me fight sock puppets and vandalism @Everedux: @LightandDark2000: @Beyond My Ken: @Chetsford: @Oshwah: @Favonian: I have pinged them to show the other Experienced users that have seen me fighting vandalism and disruptive editing and Sock puppets.

Decline reason:

Having seen you contribute confusingly, disruptively, or both to various discussions, it is clear to me that you lack the skills to contribute usefully to Wikipedia. Sandstein 16:58, 22 September 2019 (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.

 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jack90s15 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

will I be able to request a Standard offer in 6 months and request for a Clean start do to my history with fighting Vandalism and Sock Puppets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Standard_offer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Clean_start and Can I request sanctions or a Topic Block In place of a permanent Banned do to my History with Fighting vandalism?

Decline reason:

Any further abuse of the unblock template, such as you did here, and you'll lose access to this talk page. You are not eligible for a clean start. You do not have a history of fighting vandalism; in fact, you have a history of performing vandalism. Regardless, you are eligible for unblock consideration under WP:SO, no sooner than six months from your last edit. At that point, you'd have to convince us you understand why your edits were inappropriate and you'd have to stop making silly claims like you fought vandalism. Yamla (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2019 (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.

The Signpost: 30 September 2019Edit

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Jack90s15".