User talk:Alexandria/archive4

Previous archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Callwave

Why was my callwave article deleted? did i insert the information incorrectly?
UPDATE: just read your suggestions about CORP, im reading into that, thanks.
UPDATE: After looking for other companies in the same market, i have this company...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J2_Global_Communications. I think they are the owners of eFax and they list all thier products as well. I took the description of callwave straight from http://finance.google.com/finance?q=CALL so im not sure how it was blatant advertising. Im still reading through the TOS for CORP but im not seeing anyting that would get my page delted.

hay

Hi - I've been putting some historic perspective on the Tain Hindu Mandir link and you have removed it. I think you need to rethink what you are doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.250.34.161 (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So is u that keeps deleting my section of the warren, mi article —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Home Slice7 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

well

yea but i live in warren. what do u mean by source do u wanna a picture a website some thing like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Home Slice7 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

SO THEN WHAT IN THE HELL CONNOTATES A GROUP THAT ASSERTS SIGNIFICANCE GOOD SIR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkorama024 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkorama024 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A little award for your work

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your hard work on combating vandals, and your hard work in general --Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

I'm surprised that you didn't receive one of these yet, since you certainly earn one. Keep up the good work, and think about placing your barnstars somewhere on your user page, instead of your talk archives :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking vandals

Thank you for making a report about 209.96.105.20 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking vandal

Dear Kwsn, I believe that user [1] should be blocked. S/he is persistently vandalising the entry on Maria Gaetana Agnesi. Kind regards, --BF 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Further to the above message, please also block this one: [2]. Kind regards, --BF 13:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistook you as an administrator --- your comment attached to your yesterday's reversion gave me this false impression. Kind regards, --BF 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator! Now is the time to visit the Wikipedia:New admin school and, if you haven't already, to look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 00:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations - well deserved sir! Ryan Postlethwaite 00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A congratulations from me as well. Here is your new T-shirt! :) Acalamari 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You know where to ask if you need help with anything ;). Congratulations! Nihiltres^(t.l) 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats dear! Love, Neranei (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem and congrats for being an admin.--JForget 01:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Great job!   jj137 (Talk) 01:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats I'm glad Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Good luck :) S_QL^{Query me!} 04:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hey there Alexandria, Congratulations on becoming an administrator. Obviously, it is unlikely that you will know how to use the tools at first and mistakes are bound to happen, so if you would like to practice using them, with step by step guides to follow, in an environement that you can do no harm in, then why not pop down to the new admin school where we have pages on blocking, deleting and restoring pages, protecting and unprotecting pages and viewing deleted pages. Once again, congratulations and best of luck with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto

Glad you've made admin! My ignorant advice? (Ignorant because I'm not an admin.) Make sure you take breaks from the project as needed. Rested and alert admins are much better than grumpy and snappish ones. Pigman^what?/trail 02:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Kwsn - Congrats anyway (though I was no help to that) seriously, if/when you do want to polish something up for GA or even FA, I'll be happy to chip in. Putting effort into writing gives more thought when deleting..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention writing articles is actually quite fun. Seeing an anon correct a typo in your text or collaborating with others to improve an article beyond what you could do individually are things that shouldn't be missed out on. I'll stop now and add my congrats as well! I'm glad it passed! henrik•talk 06:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Well done for passing. Yes, if you take note of the points brought up in your RfA, I'm sure you will be a fine admin. Well done. Lradrama 13:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pile-on congratulations. Please at least try to work on my comments there, as well as the advice made by the users above me, which is actually quite good :-) Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 21:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yay kwsn!

—trey^{omg he's back} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Congratulations and good luck! /me huggles —trey^{omg he's back} 23:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Cris P

Not that I have a major problem with it or anything, but I am curious why you declined the speedy on Cris P. You failed to note a reason when you removed it. Improbcat 18:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for adding the speedy a second time. As soon as I realized that it had been declined, I tried to revert it, but you beat me to it. Jauerback 19:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

IP 206.40.96.71

Isn't really vandalizing? look at the history for Bryan Adams (wrestler) they keep reverting to "...he became a bodyguard for his boyfriend..." when he wasn't gay...if I'm not mistaken he was married (to a woman lol) --Crash Underride 20:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok just wonderin'. --Crash Underride 15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

this deletion

I noticted that you deleted this article under A1, and I tagged it as G1(patent nonsense) Sorry. It was only one sentence, and seemed like nonsense to me, but I realize now that A1 was more accurate in that situation.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick Favor

Hey would you mind clearing the backlog (well there are only 3 reports, but they have been there like 30 mins) from WP:AIV? Thanks, Tiptoety 06:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, thanks! Tiptoety 06:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Kwsn's Corollary to Geogre's Law

Um, isn't that actually the same thing? :-) [3] - ∅ (∅), 08:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much kwsn

Btw, how did you know I was a kid? I'll be 11 next month Botnet 22:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Although the voting ended at 36/22/5, there was no consensus to promote, and the RfA was unsuccessful. I would like the thank you nonetheless for supporting me during the RfA, and hope that any future RfA’s proceed better than this one did. Again, I thank you for your support. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Email

I fired you one. Cheers, Daniel 10:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:UAA report

Hi Kwsn, saw you also re-removed a bad UAA report by User:SqueakBox. Check out his talk page. Why do you think there's this bizarre insistence that 'smartypants' is disruptive? ~Eliz81^(C) 18:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The block

Hi. Would you consider changing that extension to 72 hours, I think one week is a bit long considering the block log. If you choose not to change the duration, I'll support you either way. Best, Mercury 20:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If I see he was provoked, probably, if it was unprovoked then I probably won't reduce it. Kwsn (Ni!) 20:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, however, I did not provoke.  :) Best, Mercury 21:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

thx

Thanks for extending my block. I think it was the right way to go. 84.44.174.127 21:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I have deleted and restored your talk page in order to remove edits which published editors' real names. Do not be alarmed.  :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Fnagaton

Can you give me some diffs to support this? I know the blocked user has been emailing Fnagton and me, but I must be missing something. Are you suggesting it's not acceptable to discuss a banned user's implosion on one's own talk page? And is it really necessary to be so protective of banned users who have abused multiple socks, intentionally posted others' real names to harass them, made death threats, etc? -- But|seriously|folks  06:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is taunting the blocked user really doing much other than encouraging them to come back, with more socks, to get more of a response? SQL^{Query me!} 06:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I had also discussed the block with someone else and they agreed as well. Fnagaton's actions after the block really didn't help the situation much (as SQL pointed out, also see WP:DENY), that's my primary motivation here. Kwsn (Ni!) 06:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is discussing his continued taunting and harrasment of admins and editors here both on Wikipedia and off (which was occuring before that time, during, and after) providing any more encouragement than he already needed? The man was banned 6 months ago and its still occurring. --Marty Goldberg 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no BAN. Only a block. There was no discussion to for said ban, and this is for Sarenne, not NotSarenne. If you can find a diff link showing he was banned, I'll accept that. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that all three of you (NotSarenne, Wgungfu, and Fnagaton) turned my talk page into your personal battle ground. I do not look highly at that. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(After 3 edit conflicts) Maybe it's not the best approach, but is it blockworthy? Wouldn't a better response be an email to the 'taunters' asking them to knock it off or take it off-wiki? Anyway, the guy returned six months later without any taunting, so there's no reason to believe he'll stay away. (Aside from certain admins' blocking efforts, that is.)

I 'spect the simple fact that you blocked Fnagaton is going to be sufficient to deter him and the other culprits (myself included) from continuing their (ok, our) 'taunting' out in the open. Is it ok with you if another admin unblocks Fnagaton if Fnagaton so requests? If so, would you kindly indicate this on his talk page? Thanks!

Oh, and by the way, I've been assuming NotSarenne is Sarenne, based on the quack test. That's where the ban assertions are coming from.

Also, while it is your talk page, you don't own it. If you don't like a post here, simply delete it. -- But|seriously|folks  07:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Kwsn, honestly, I felt bad for the whole situation on your talk page and you having to have been in the middle of it, especially being so new of an admin. And I could tell it was stressing you out after because of your stress meter on your main page. That's why I stated what I did to your comments on Keifer's talk page. Regarding the block on notSarenne, the block was for being a sockpuppet of Sarenne: "You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Sarenne". Sarenne is a banned user. --Marty Goldberg 07:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I added that template. Kwsn's block was for sockpuppetry in general. -- But|seriously|folks  07:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood. And in support of that, admin FisherQueen's denial of his unblock request before your template change also stated the belief that it was a sockpuppet of Sarenne as well. --Marty Goldberg 07:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If Fnagaton requests an unblock, I'll leave it up to an uninvolved admin to decide. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does that leave us? As stated above, I apologize for anything I may have caused on your talk page. And I actually was enjoying the start of our friendly conversation on my talk page. --Marty Goldberg 07:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) right now I need sleep, that's my current goal. I'll think of something tomorrow. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha -- too much Dew! -- But|seriously|folks  07:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dorftrottel (talk · contribs)

Hey kwsn, I've started up a thread on AN about a possible unblock of Dorftrottel, due to him no longer being drunk - feel free to comment. Hope everythings going well, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Congratulations on becoming an administrator!

Just before you got your mop, a prominent Wikipedian made this comment: "I am running out of patience for incivility at Wikipedia,... Some people simply should not be contributing to an encyclopedia.... and note that all editors should always endeavor to treat each other with kindness, or else find another hobby. When we put up with this kind of behavior, we enable a hostile environment that drives away good people. We should be gentle, but firm: this kind of behavior is not allowed at Wikipedia." --Jimbo Wales 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) [4]

and I wondered what your attitude was?

The reason I ask is that there have been recent admin threads on whether, and under what circumstances one admin should overturn the block of another ...Alice.S 06:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Block overturn

I too am concerned about your overturning of Tim Vickers block. I am posting it to ANI for review. --DHeyward 06:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kwsn, I am disturbed to learn about this, particularly after the deference I showed you with regard to your block of User:Fnagaton, which I believed (and still believe) was undeserved. Although I knew you were a brand new admin, I did not raise that as an issue and discussed the matter with you rather than reverting. I have in the past been summarily reverted by other admins without any attempt at prior discussion, so I know how that feels, and I did not want to subject you to that. But I am thinking now that perhaps you should ease into your use of the block / unblock button, focusing on obvious and uncontroversial cases until you learn how others are using that tool. Please don't take offense to my suggestion. I've been an admin for months, yet I still won't attempt to close controversial AfD's, so this advice is nothing that I do not adhere to myself. Now, fetch me . . . a shrubbery! -- But|seriously|folks  07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the shrubbery. I hope you told Roger I said hello. I guess my point is that just as you didn't think Perspicacite deserved a block for uncivility, I didn't think User:Fnagaton deserved one. Maybe I just haven't found it yet, but I don't see any involvement between TV and P aside from TV's efforts to do his admin thing and enforce policy. Surely the fact that P took offense and barked back at TV doesn't insulate P from admin action on TV's part. So I consider the situations similar enough that the same process should have been followed in both, i.e., either I should have felt free to revert you or you should not have felt free to revert TV. My .02 anyway . . . -- But|seriously|folks  07:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's like my late night deletion spree! -- But|seriously|folks  08:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll be needing one of these.

Since this keeps getting reclosed at AN/I... please do not unblock users without first checking with the blocking admin and/or seeking consensus to do so at AN/I, except in very limited cases. It is not really a good idea to go in and unlaterally decide this. The blocking admin may know things that should not be made public, and in my view, in general it's just not a good idea to revert your fellow admins without consensus. Thanks. My advice to new admins is to avoid reverting the actions of other admins altogether for quite some time. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for letting me know that you unblocked that user, however it would be good if you had let me know beforehand, rather than afterwards. You might have missed the incivility that I blocked him for since it was in an edit summary, rather than in the text of an edit. However, it was mostly the editor's aggressive and confrontational attitude after I'd warned them on their talk page that was the reason for the block, rather than the edit summary itself. Anyway, no harm done - but talk before unblocking next time. All the best Tim Vickers 16:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

SSP

You blocked this editor and now that same editor is listed at SSP. If you have an opinion on the SSP matter, please consider adding it. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 12:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EJadSPM System, Complete Web Host Billing & Hosting Automation

I've removed the AFD notice and added the "kept at AFD" notice to cPanel, as it appears that you did not delete it like the other articles. If this was my error, feel free to revert. Either way, you might want to clarify this at the AFD. Thanks, shoy (^words _words) 16:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Thank you...

for the revert on Eilat. It's ironic: travelers to the ME often have the reverse of what vandal was complaining about. Keep up the good work: it is appreciated. :] Shir-El too 23:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam

Yeah, I realized that I was editing the old revisions in which some of the DVD Talk linkspam had been added and tried to go back and fix them. Thanks for catching my mistake! I was tracking down the contributions of an IP that had solicited DVD Talk across numerous film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect fix Rafael Sebastián Guillén

Wow, you are fast - thanks for the help! Inertia Tensor 05:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's sex life in BJAODN

Hail to thee sir knight! Long may your shrubberies grow and prosper!

I noticed one of the surviving bits of BJAODN contains some libel about Jimbo, but I can't get rid of it myself cos the page is protected. As the first admin from the deletion debate who voted keep, maybe you could sort it out and stop anyone taking it as a reason to delete the whole page? Its section 15 I mean.

Moyabrit 14:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mamba

Looks like I messed up your revision to Mamba... Sorry about that! Thanks for helping with Vandalism!--PabloMartinez 19:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ignore All Polls

That is all. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of BubbleUp

hey man, we are a very real company. http://www.bubbleup.net/

and we have very real clients, such as Jimmy_Buffet, Daryl_Hall and Gretchen_Wilson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Booleanoperator (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of funkypool!

Hi just wondering how other online game sites such as runescape are allowed a page and yet funkypool isnt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkypool (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, how can runescape be a justified article? Seems to just be providing similar information which i would have included if i had been allowed to for funkypool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkypool (talk • contribs) 23:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the more understanding reply, I see that such websites as runescape and habbo hotel are a more commercial enterprise and so this seems to give them more official presence on the internet. The thing is, if you are admin are you not able to question this? I am a very new user and I apologise if my knowledge of the restrictions implemented by this site is limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkypool (talk • contribs) 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I didnt know how to... Personally I cant see a problem with creating an article about a popular online pool game. But if there is nothing i can do then i will have to accept it. Thanks for the lightning fast correspondence Funkypool 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're close. It isn't about size or commercial success. It's about being able to verify that the information in the article is true- by using independent sources, like newspapers and magazines. If no independent sources have written about a game, then the information is impossible to independently verify. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I only created an account in the hope of creating the article, if I have another reason to edit or create a new article (may have to flick through the guidelines more thoroughly next time) I will register a new account. I will leave this account so that if in the event of the restrictions being slackened i can re-create the article (better not hold my breath though) Funkypool 00:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to FisherQueen's post I understand the need for the information to be independantly researched to ensure it is true, but why would this independant research be done for a "free" online pool game? With such sites as Habbo Hotel and Runescape charging for access to their site and the gameplay they are open to become an independant business where they are self funded. This also allows them to be open to scandal such as online fraud (specifically Habbo Hotel which has been very recently involved in such circumstances). Such scandal interests these independant researchers and so builds the site's name up to become a world wide brand. So the simple question is... are such smaller sites required to become a world wide name on the internet through online fraud just to allow them to make an article about themself on wikipedia? Funkypool 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As you suggested I applied to have my username changed, however, my post has been removed for some unknown reason? Any ideas?Funkypool 01:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, done now and I'll just sit and wait for a reply! Funkypool 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr Roger D. Compose

Editor re-created, i have tagged it again, then user rm {{speed}} tag. Please delete, thanks. Tiptoety 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Thanks! Tiptoety 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Tiptoety 23:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

EFFL

Hey, can you put my page for the EFFL back up. its just a thing i put on for fun, it me and my buddies football pool and i thought it would be fun to have a wikipedia page where we could store our history and stuff. it isnt for advertising or anything, it is strictly for fun, and isnt that what wikipedia is about

--K perry 1 00:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I replied. -- But|seriously|folks  18:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Tain Hindu Mandir

hi kwsn .. would like to get your help to put some information about the Tain Hindu Mandir on line. any of your suggestions will be helpful :) dk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.250.34.161 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem

They're after you today. I protected your user page for 24 a few hours ago. See ya'! -- But|seriously|folks  18:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cold Water Flat

Hi, I saw you A7'ed this article. Can you userfy it for me so I can work on it for restoration? Chubbles (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Just needed a little love. It was on my watchlist; I checked it for redlinks the other day and CWF was on it. Wish there was a better way to track these things...there isn't any way I can see a list of my own deleted edits, is there? (There should be.) Chubbles (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean, in general...like, a "my contributions" page but only displaying edits i've made to pages that have since been deleted. Chubbles (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

dawdle

since you were a bit nicer in telling me why and this is my first article i am trying to submit can you possibly tell me idk what to different becuase i feel it should stay because there are articles like the montgomery dinghy dawdle [5] that have little notability for signficane. Thank you Emargul (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

more thoughts

that it should stay, it has no direct violation really, and it has some significance i mean it was just launched and is beginning to get lots of traffic, thats why it is popping up on places like digg, so i feel to be fair there is no immdiate violation and it should stay. I am putting up the other sources on the page so please be helpful and maybe edit it. If you do feel it is really not notable after looking at my other sources than feel free to delete it. Also i shouldn't put a link to the actual web page right?

more sources

the title says it all

help me

help me on the deletion page. There has to be some reason you didi'nt delete it so please tell them

Halo War Omega

WTF, u deleted the talk page, thats were we were protesting the deletion of the article, please bring back the talk page (and the article while ur at it) --Xgmx (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the unblock!--Diniz (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

HUYA Syndrome

My entry for the HUYA syndrome contains content of merit and is similar to concepts like Murphy's Law and the PETER Principle - which, while not quantifiable, have a place in the popular American lexicon. I ask the HUYA Syndrome entry be reinstated, or if you prefer, relocated to the entry on Allan Weisbecker, the author who defined the concept itself. Thank you.

Insert non-formatted text here