Open main menu

Deletion Review for Jay Schneiderman ArticleEdit

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and looking to be a regular contributor in whatever way possible. However, my timing was almost perfect. I recently went to add to the article on Jay Schneiderman and found that only recently it had been discussed and deleted here.

I have since familiarized myself with the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and more and I am confident that what I was planning to do will be sufficient for it to remain as a standalone article. I was planning to update the content with recent material of regional significance, as well as add a significant number of reliable, independent, and secondary sources. This would include the replacement for the primary source hyperlink that has since be deactivated and cited as evidence for the proposed deletion.

More specifically, material will be submitted that will easily demonstrate that the article subject is a "major local political figure who has received significant press coverage" and who "meets the general notability guidelines" of Wikipedia.

Gracias, Señor Omnisciente (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Señor Omnisciente: I could do something for you called "userfication". I would restore the deleted article but place it in your userspace at User:Señor Omnisciente/Jay Schneiderman, with a {{Userspace draft}} template at the top of it. When you have added the material that you think shows his notability, you can click the "Submit your draft for review" button on the template. It will go into the Articles for Creation queue for another editor to review the updated article. (This may take a few weeks if there is a backlog.) If the reviewer agrees that the article indicates notability, it will be published as an article again. If not, you may need to find some additional material to make your case. If this approach seems acceptable to you, let me know and I will proceed accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. that would be most appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Señor Omnisciente (talkcontribs) 19:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Señor Omnisciente: Done as I described. --RL0919 (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will get to work on it.

Update as of 9/25/19: Good morning. I'm sorry to bug you again about this, but I wasn't sure who else to inquire with. I submitted changes and rewrote this article via the UserSpace Draft you prepared for me. (Thank you again). I submitted on September 5. I know you said it "may take a few weeks if there is a backlog," so it being right at 3 weeks I thought I would check in with someone, even though it is being reviewed by another admin. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Señor Omnisciente (talkcontribs) 15:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Señor Omnisciente: Looking at the stats for the AFC backlog, it looks like 3 weeks is about the median wait right now and 2/3rds are less than 7 weeks, so it seems likely that someone will get to you soon. Unfortunately I can't make any promises, since like other things on Wikipedia it's an all-volunteer activity, and each reviewer gets to pick and choose what they want to review and when. --RL0919 (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, btw. I realized I hadn't responded. This is very helpful. It's my first one so I'm eager is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Señor Omnisciente (talkcontribs) 14:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Camp Tel Noar (3rd nomination)Edit

Regarding your close of this as keep. As I stated in the AfD, all the sources found are passing mentions. I asked for people to identify which sources provide the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG but no one did. Could you let me know which "specific sources were surfaced to establish notability"? I don't see how the keep arguments outweigh the delete ones here. Thanks. ----Pontificalibus 09:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This one is a full page spread about the camp; this article is about it; this is about an event at the camp, which you discounted, but others did not. Even discounting the arguments not based on sources, these sources and others brought forward in the discussion were convincing to several participants, so I don't see a good case to disregard the clear majority favoring keep. --RL0919 (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. The article begins "Camp Tel Noar is a Jewish summer camp for children ages 7 through 16". It follows that other events held at the camp's location have no bearing on the notability of the summer camp for children. Whilst the first source is therefore fine, the other two should be disregarded. However if no other contributors to the AfD bothered to consider this point, then I guess it's best to reword the article's lead to make it clear the article is about the campsite, not just the summer camp held there.----Pontificalibus 10:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello RL0919. I'm inclined to agree with Pontificalibus here. Of the keep !voters, only one mentioned any new sources that might establish notability. Since both Pontificalibus and I questioned that those sources provided significant coverage of Camp Tel Noar, I don't think a consensus to keep was yet established. Would you consider relisting the AfD so that a more in-depth analysis of the sources could take place? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I slept on it, and reviewed the discussion and sources again, and I'm still not inclined to re-open the discussion. The sources provided by RebeccaGreen seem to establish the existence of multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage (the basic GNG requirement), even if not every source she listed qualifies as such. --RL0919 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Adobe Photoshop version historyEdit

Hint hint 👌 ——SerialNumber54129 05:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Apparently an XFDCloser script failure combined with my own failure to notice that it failed. Thanks for letting me know. --RL0919 (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The vote was to merge the content into Adobe_Photoshop#Version_history but this hasn't happened Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was definitely not "merge". Most participants thought the detail was excessive; only a couple even suggested the conditional possibility of merging. I think a redirect would be OK if you want to create that. --RL0919 (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

  Administrator changes

  DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

  CheckUser changes


  Oversight changes

  CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ayn RandEdit

Thanks for the correction. (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Winnie HarlowEdit

Hey Much Love as a friend, How are U? They forgot to add to Winnie Harlow 's Wikipedia page on the television part, that Winnie Harlow appeared on The Kim Kardashian episode of Jimmy Fallon, where they play the phone game, I'm watching it now. TelleyTell (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

False positiveEdit

Look at this diff [1]. You misinterpreted the last name Guarente as a typo of Guarantee. I already fixed but please be more careful next time. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's an AutoWikiBrowser typo fix that was mixed with find/replace changes, and I guess I overlooked the context in the long diff. Thanks for catching it for me. --RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for today!Edit

  Justice Award
Today is better than yesterday. Thank you for that! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


Hardly a big deal, but since your JWB edit summary is popping up all over the place with your name on it (here's one), maybe you'd like to fix the spelling. Thanks for updating the CS1/2 params. Mathglot (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ha, I'm pretty much done for the moment, so I will have to live with my shame (and note for the future that spellcheck apparently doesn't work inside the JWB settings). --RL0919 (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


There's Monkbot 16 going through those already. I suggest letting the bot handle those to reduce watchlist cluttering. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I know. But it has tens of thousands of articles to fix and is going in (sort of) alphabetical order. I focused on the highest traffic articles from the past two weeks, then the 1000 level 3 vital articles, many of which the bot won't touch for weeks. But those are done now, so I'll be taking a pause regardless. --RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Theatre project bannerEdit

Musicals and musical theatre actors get the Musical Theatre project banner, not the Theatre project banner. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

According to whom? --RL0919 (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC) And also, how would this justify removal of the project from actors who have also appeared in non-musical plays, such as John Barrowman? --RL0919 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

request article you deleted restored to my draft spaceEdit

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Games_with_ray_tracing I'd like to have it restored so I can then do a full history export and then import it at at the list wikia as I have other list articles that have been deleted. [2] Dream Focus 15:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Done; you can find it at User:Dream Focus/Games with ray tracing. --RL0919 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

kPa → KPAEdit

In this edit to Korean War, you changed several instances of "KPA" to "kPa"-- the proper capitalization for Kilopascal. While the Korean People's Army did try to exert pressure on the South, I changed these all back to "KPA". Can you check if you have other edits like this? Thanks. --A D Monroe III(talk) 15:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!Edit


After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Diversity winner
  • Gender-gap fillers
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

  Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.



  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please restore the AFD at Mark ConaghanEdit

I was about to make this comment when I got the edit conflict message.

"*Maybe keep. His performances in works are reviewed in the press ([3]), [4]) and even in this journal article: "Adapting Australian novels for the stage: La Boite Theatre's versions of Last Drinks, Perfect Skin, and Johnno.", Joanne Tompkins, Australian Literary Studies, April, 2008, Vol.23(3), p.305(13). He was the main subject of this article in The Queensland Times and this article in The Daily Examiner. From the resume it looks like he was a resident artist at the Queensland Theatre Company which is a professional Australian theatre. There productions are regularly reviewed in the press, so there is bound to be more coverage behind the paywalls of newspaper websites in Queensland. It's a borderline call. I could see people making arguments either way."

This needs more time. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Conaghan. --ST47 (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Having additional sources to discuss is a perfectly legitimate reason to reverse the close, so I've reverted my close, restored the article, and relisted the discussion. For future reference, this sort of thing does not require a WP:ANI discussion, just a little patience to let me finish dinner and see your request. --RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I've now also restored the incoming links taht were removed when I deleted the article previously, and the (unused) redirect at Conaghan, Mark. --RL0919 (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

AfD for Rogers BankEdit

I was kind of surprised you relisted the AfD for single sentence Rogers Bank since it had been fully one week with no objections. Since this so clearly lacks notability, can I possibly convince you to please just proceed with the deletion? It's also, I believe, already mentioned in Rogers Communications, and it would be nice to have just a clean deletion. No one would have a problem with this. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: There was no discussion at all, so a relist would be the typical next step. If you want a quick deletion with no discussion, you should try proposed deletion instead of opening an Articles for Deletion discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
RL0919, I've yet to find one I've done that hasn't been de-PRODed. Do admins, by default, almost always de-PROD deletions and/or CSD deletions, or just the latter? Doug Mehus (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
RL0919, Also, I saw some cases where other admins gave an AfD only one week and, seeing no objection, said soft delete WP:UNDELETE applies. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dmehus: I can't account for every admin, but personally I have more commonly deleted articles with either kind of tag, but also sometimes declined them if the tagging is outside guidelines or the deletion seems likely to be controversial. In contrast, I usually only soft delete from a no-discussion AFD if it has been relisted at least once. I don't know the statistics for admin activity overall, but I believe my approach is well within the norm. --RL0919 (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
RL0919, Oh okay, thanks for clarifying that. So, there's definitely some variance in closure approaches between admins. At any rate, when I explained my rationale, the user supported my proposal. Thanks for your reply. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rupert DoverEdit

User:習振英 has asked for a deletion review of Rupert Dover. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 05:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

AFD closeEdit

Since you closed the AFD for List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters earlier today, I am letting you know that it was already been renominated for deletion. BOZ (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@BOZ: Thanks for the heads up, but there's probably no action on my end. Rapid renomination after a no-consensus close is allowed, although it's often not the wise choice, and same-day seems particularly hasty. It's the nominator's choice if they want to take the flack they may get for it. --RL0919 (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


abide by WP:NOQUORUM in your AfD closes. WBGconverse 16:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: That's a bit vague, especially when linking to a guideline that says things like "the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement". If you have a specific suggestion, you might want to state it more explicitly. --RL0919 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD. Generally, this will result in soft deletion.
This was the result of a RFC that explicitly asked closer(s) to prefer treating unopposed AfDs as PRODS rather than go on about relisting them, in light of gradually decreasing traffic at AfDs and other miscellaneous reasons.
You (obviously) maintain a discretion to relist but that fails to be considered as a discretion, when you are (literally) relisting every unopposed AfD after about a week. WBGconverse 17:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I will take your feedback under consideration. --RL0919 (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, as well :-) WBGconverse 16:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Ender's Game series planetsEdit

@RL0919: There is a companion which contains these information and can be used for the article. Is it possible to restore it? I have the book, so I can help fixing the problems. Please forgive me if I used a wrong place to write it down. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bencemac: I have copied your comment from Talk:List of Ender's Game series planets to my user talk page, which is a more appropriate spot. The talk page of the deleted article is subject to speedy deletion since the article no longer exists. Regarding your specific request, I don't believe the source you mention would resolve the core issue. It is an "authorized companion" written with Card's approval and published by the same publisher as his books, which means it is not an independent source that would help establish notability for the list. Sometimes famous authors or media franchises have books or articles written about them by independent scholars. (For example, the Twayne's Masterwork Studies series includes many famous genre novels.) If you know of something like that where the fictional planets from the series are discussed, that would be more to the point. Since a non-independent companion book doesn't change the situation from the deletion discussion, I can't use that as a justification for reviving the article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, I understand your point. Just one more thing; could you send me the content of the page if it is possible? It could be useful later. (I used the talk page because “comments should be made on [...] the article's talk page”, sorry about that) Bencemac (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I should be able to send via email later today. --RL0919 (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Sent via email. --RL0919 (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Bencemac (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


Hello! I was wondering if this strikes you as a correct WP:NAC? I've asked the closer to reverse it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It has been reversed. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of the List of devices with video output over USB-C page.Edit

Hi, this is my first time around the inner workings of Wikipedia so bare with me.

I'd like to ask that the article with the List of devices with video output over USB-C be restored. How should I go about doing that?

It was the only available list with that content online. And believe me I searched a lot for it. While most computers are easy enough to find out if they have alt-mode active over usb-c there was no other resource available with the smartphone section. Even if in the distant future the page becomes redundant, at the moment, it's a very niche function that very few devices have activated. It was important enough for me that I had it bookmarked (of course it's not something I check every-day) but it's quite important. Devices wikipedia page's rarely include that particular specification, even the manufacturer's pages many times don't mention it. Like the LG phones that got it from the latest major Android firmware update.


--N19h7M4r3 (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@N19h7M4r3: You can appeal deletion decisions at Deletion Review (DRV). DRV typically focuses either for a mistake in the process that led to deletion (in this case the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of devices with video output over USB-C) or for significant new information that was not known at the time of deletion. A reader saying they found the material useful isn't the sort of thing that would typically get a deleted article restored. If you simply want a copy of the list for your own use, I (or any willing administrator) could send you the deleted text via email. --RL0919 (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@RL0919: Eh... I don't have time to learn all the language and etiquette... But I don't agree with the articles of deletion and almost everyone there just said it was useless (to them). I wonder how many of the people involved in the deletion have a tech background. Flowing dreams does acknowledge that it is useful for a handful of people like a lot of other very specific pieces of information on Wikipedia. I see hundreds of lists and tables for comparison on Wikipedia, this information was just presented differently. Instead of listing devices that don't have the feature the page only had a concise list of devices that support it. Maybe the list would work better integrated into the USB-C page but I have no idea how to do that and time to learn either. I guess that information will remain hidden. Best regards --N19h7M4r3 (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Why was this article deleted?Edit

You deleted "List of unused highways in Californa", why is this? This article is very informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:4E7F:C131:1482:86FD:26CA:C66B (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It was deleted as the result of a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in California, where the opinion of participants was unanimous for deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I know you're just following process but I find it sad that about ten people (judging by that delete history) who for the most part don't find such an uncontroversial matter to be interesting can completely obliterate the work of many, many more who do find it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:4E7F:C131:1482:86FD:26CA:C66B (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book)Edit

It was not known to me that the article creator can vote on Afd, otherwise i did vote, I think you should give a relist of 7 days to make concensus, i also propose/request you to give me the article as draft if it will be deleted after relist of 7 days, so that I can rewrite the article changing the title as "Muhammad in the Hindu scriptures". Loves. Lazy-restless 05:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lazy-restless: Since this is the second time an article on this subject has been deleted at AFD, and you did comment in the most recent discussion, I do not see what would be gained by a relist. However, if you want the text as a userspace draft to use as the start of a new article, I can do that. --RL0919 (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I will be thankful to you as a user if you do that, because it will help me to create the new article Draft:Muhammad and Hindu scriptures. I will also request/propose for 7 day relist of the afd so that I can be completely assure myself that the article is completely worthy of deletion. Lazy-restless 03:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Lazy-restless: I have restored the content for you at User:Lazy-restless/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book). As suggested in my earlier reply, I do not agree with your suggestion for a relist of the AFD, so I will not be doing that. If you want to press that point, you can raise it at Deletion Review. However, my best advice would be to focus on your new draft. The broader subject seems much more likely to be notable than an individual book about it. --RL0919 (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 30. —Cryptic 21:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi. A heads-up that I've rolled back your conversion of content to a redirect; this piece was substantial enough that it needs to run through a standardized community deletion process (PROD or AfD) rather than being unilaterally put to the sword. I share your belief it is not gonna pass GNG, mind you; I only differ with the process used here. best, —tim //// Carrite (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Carrite: AFD created, although this seems like discussion for the sake of discussion if you don't actually disagree with the idea of redirecting. A redirect with no deletion and no protection is something any interested editor could have reverted, if there is any active editor who does disagree, so the sword in this case was made of foam. --RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Process is important. Carrite (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rupert DoverEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rupert Dover. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SCP-2000 (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Besnik SulajEdit

Hi RL0919, this article has just been recreated at Besnik Sulaj after it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Besnik Sulaj. scope_creepTalk 13:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC) scope_creepTalk

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "RL0919".