User talk:Adhib

Maluku

Good work on an article that certainly needs it! Keep up the good work! Mark Richards 18:32, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agency

Hello. Your editing of agency prompts me to offer this comment: Although the title word or title phrase in an article is higlighted at its first appearance, like this, it should not be capitalized unless there is some other reason for capitalization. Michael Hardy 22:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Technicalities

Hello. Please note that there is no need to write [[meaning|meanings]], since writing [[meaning]]s has exactly the same effect, like this: meanings. Michael Hardy 19:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ivan Bloch

Good article. Stargoat 18:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Yikes! It's a conspiracy!. OK, you probably did not mean to wreck the Conspiracy theory page, but you did leave it mangled, with its bottom chopped off. I have reverted and divided the page into Conspiracy theory and Conspiracy theories (a list) to make them shorter and easier to edit for now. If you are going to spawn topical sub pages, please, please, please consider using the form:

Just a thought.--Cberlet 21:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Cberlet. The original was running at 50kb, which fritzed my editor halfway down a re-edit. I thought I had managed to revert, but apparently just bit off more than I could chew. Your re-edit is getting there nicely. Adhib 14:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't stop your editing, I was just letting you know I had reverted to a complete version and split the pages because the single page was way too long. There is still lots to do.--Cberlet 19:16, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice catch of the duplicated text. Where was my brain? :-) --Cberlet 19:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience in being willing to discuss this with zen-master; at least a half dozen other editors have already given up, so your persistence is admirable. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way you restructured Conspiracy theory. In particular, your comment "what if a 15-year old kid needed to find out what 'conspiracy theory' is about, and came to this article to find out?" makes a lot of sense. The articles need to be designed for people trying to get factual information on the topic. If you are willing, I'd like to see a similar restructuring of Unidentified Flying Objects and Roswell Incident. Bubba73 (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, shucks, how can I resist such a kind invitation? I'll see if I can sneak a few more hours past the wife. Adhib 20:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arg. Crimes against encyclopaediatry! Chaotic ramblings! Bubba73, damn you for letting me know! Adhib 21:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Zen-master has added a {twoversions) template that on the verge of deletion (actually he subst'd it) to the article. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Twoversions for reasons why this notice should not be used. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 17:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hello ! just read your message at german wp in article Verschwörungstheorie. will take a look at your discussion here. michael Redecke 00:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For you

I award this Barnstar to Adhib for his patience and commitment to reason in his work on Conspiracy theory.

I've learned a great deal from my strange conversations with fellow editors on Conspiracy theory. In particular, I think the topic provides a fascinating insight into modern political consciousness, and the general decline in the public consciousness from (to use Vygotsky's terms) concepts towards complexes. Furedi adds [1]

"Conspiracy theory" title neutrality proposal 2.0 voting has begun

Hello Adhib, I am still open for debate and discussion on the issue if you are interested. See here and Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. zen master T 20:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New "conspiracy theory" in titles discussion and proposal area

Can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory titles, if you want me to I can copy over the old counter argument from Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory or Wikipedia:Title Neutrality (the latter was moved to my userspace) but for now I left a space for an updated counter argument to go underneath version 2.0 of the proposal at: Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles. I will let SlimVirgin know too. zen master T 18:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem Zen-m has gone overboard, perhaps with a friendly nudge or two. Adhib 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need a non pop-cultural reference on "elide"

Your use of elide/elision as ~~"conflate"/"conflation" appears to represent a neologism, not found in more established sources (e.g., Merriam-Webster, Chambers' [=Barnhart] Etymological Dictionary); really even something of a malapropism. Imho, someone came rather quickly to your aid, after you had got your unfounded "marred" jab in at me (a jab being what it certainly seems to me to have been...), that other editor pretty much immediately having swept the whole thing into an archive page (See my post there, with your summary last-word response just prior to archiving...), and with it any normal opportunity for me to have set the record straight (this quick removal having occurred on the weak premise that the conversation had nothing to do with the quality of the article; that is certainly in the eye of the Owner, I mean Beholder). →So now I must persist in asking: What are your sources on that alleged use of "elide"? And why (as I am clearly alleging–though it need not have been consciously deliberate...) are you two so quick to carry out this sort of tag-team hit-and-run (as I am experiencing it)? These actions strike me as ironically very conspiracy-like, if I may say so without being censored.

I will gladly stand corrected on the usage question if you can give me a mainstream, serious dictionary entry for support. However I will not go so gentle into that good night on the matter of having had my views suppressed–politely and good-naturedly, but suppressed nonetheless. Tell me, why should I not take these observations to indicate that you and de facto allies are seeking to control this topic together? For at least a decade, apparently? – Under the current rules, you of course have a right to maintain your own long-term interest in this subject, and to edit here for as long as you like–even if that editing should entail the systematic deletion of opposing views and definitions; however, I would like to ask you: How is the barnstar awarded above for "patience and commitment to reason" not tantamount to praise for relentless POV warring? I reiterate that so far as I can tell, you are operating within the current rules; but when I see this sort of long-term management of an article by people who behave as though bent on excluding other points of view pretty much completely, I begin to think that those rules need serious reform.

--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Must you find the usage in your approved dictionary, or would a cursory riffle through English as she is spoke be acceptable to you?

I honestly have no idea why another editor intervened at this point in time, so can hardly be held to account for whatever their motivation might have been. As to your suggestion of POV warring, I freely admit to fighting for the neutral POV, versus the partisan. What's the POV you represent, that's excluded in the process? Would it by any chance require us to accept that Conspiracy Theory is more intellectually respectable than the article allows? If so, for reasons rehearsed ad nauseam in the archived talk pages of this article, you are not neutral. Adhib (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism

Interesting stuff regarding Britannica 1911's take on anti-semitism. Is the last sentence (regarding anti-semitism in the South) also from Britannica? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gagh! Busted! That last part's original research. I'll get me coat. Adhib 14:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

David Duke

Hi Adhib, AndyL has changed Duke's diploma from Kiev to an honorary degree. Do you happen to know what it was exactly that they gave Duke, and do you have a reference? Best, SlimVirgin 16:56, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

The issues are twofold: Firstly, does the institution have the academic credentials by which its awards would receive international recognition as postgraduate degrees? Secondly, does it have the academic credibility to be treated as a politically-neutral arbiter of the quality of Duke's scholarship? My recommended reference materials are as follows:

IAPM English language pages assert capacity to grant 'diplomas'
An independent source [2] confirms 'diploma': "It is the largest private higher school of Ukraine with its admission quota more than 1 200 students. In IAMP more than 7 000 students study, it has many branches and regional centres. This private higher school is gradually turning into a Ukrainian analogue of the British Open University. It awards diplomas in eight specialities from the sphere of economy, business, law and psychology on a three-level system - younger specialist (expert), bachelor, master (two, four and six years of training respectively)."
The same source [3] records that 'nostryfication' - achieving equivalence with international standards - is in progress, not yet achieved.
Rector of IAPM is considered a Nazi within Ukraine [4]
World Jewish Congress identifies IAPM as main source of anti-Semitic propaganda in Ukraine [5]
The Ukraine State Committee on Ethics has requested the repeal of the IAPM's existing accreditation [6]
There's some confusion distinguishing the IAPM from the International Personnel Academy, which may turn out to be the body that 'awarded' the 'doctorate' [7]

I'm being pedantic here for the simple reason that Duke boosters themselves put emphasis on this honorific to argue that their ideas command rank and respectability in some parts of academia. I think it is wiki's duty to clarify to what extent IAPM is properly thought of as a degree-awarding body. Adhib 20:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all this research. I agree it's important, and you're not being pedantic at all. I'm a little concerned that the word "diploma" was used by the source you link to above simply because of a translation error, as the text does refer to bachelors and masters, which we would normally call degrees; though they may be using the word "diploma" deliberately to signal a lack of accreditation. I'd say you should use your judgment regarding what to call it, as you're the one who has done the research. SlimVirgin 20:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I figured it might come down to buggins' turn. Let's stet for now. I've lodged a polite request for clarification with the Great Leader himself. What's the worst that can happen? Adhib 21:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. Good for you. SlimVirgin 21:24, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

He seems strangely reluctant to answer, mind. Adhib 12:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aristocracy revert

To be frank, I reverted you most recently because I thought it was vandalism. The link addition was that questionable. Trustafarian is a slang term and added absolutely nothing to the article by linking it there. I will generally leave a comment unless I believe an addition to be vandalism or a test. Daniel Quinlan 13:38, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. The Trustafarian link made sense in the context of the whacking great paragraph that was also eliminated, I thought. Trustafarian is a popular culture term for aristocrat - both denote a person living on 'independent means' - the interest from property accumulated by their family. Was the paragraph on Aristocracy as a social group merely collateral damage sustained in the squelching of my admittedly populist link, or did you have specific questions about that stuff, as well? Adhib 16:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obesity

Adhib, shall we make obesity a featured article. Please see my comments on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 12:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd like that, but do think we need a pic of a fat person. I've been out roaming the working-class districts of my city with a digital camera, but all the big people seem to be hiding behind lamposts. Where's this epidemic when you need it, that's what I want to know? Adhib 08:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deep Lake Water Cooling

On my talk page, you wrote:

Either I'm missing something about this system, or it's not a form of renewable energy - it's simply a substitute for aircon, one which uses a bit less energy (presumably - although even that reduction seems not to be quantified - what wattage do the water pumps burn?). Maybe there is a nifty heat exchanger involved that's creating a net power output? But I can't see any reference to that. Adhib 13:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Energy is defined in the start of its article as: the property ... of changing the state of a system or doing work. Later in the article, one can read: how much work the system could be made to do, or how much heat it can exchange. I elaborate on this point in the renewable energy article:

Energy measures work or heat exchange; although this technology doesn't generate energy that can do work, water-cooling is a form of heat exchange.

So, assuming my understanding is correct, by definition, exhanging heat is a form of energy. The state of the system is changed. (By the way, the articles on your user page sound interesting and I'm following some of your links.) WpZurp 03:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for setting that out. I think my suspicion is confirmed, though I really can't be certain (I'm no thermodynamicist). If work is being performed in the act of heat exchange, it is done by the warm buildings acting to warm the chilled water at the pumphouse. The lake system itself must be drawing electrical energy from the grid (or burning fuel) to drive the pumps that raise water from the lake bed. It makes no contribution to energy supplies, so I'd be reluctant to accept definitions of renewable energy which accommodated it - though it is, of course, substituting for a more inefficient cooling technology, and thus makes energy savings possible. Adhib 20:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: a note I left across my provider's IP range

Hello, I am relatively new to wikipedia but interested in learning more about the problem of disciplining abusers on public IP blocks such as you describe. Can you point me at a relevant discussion so I can arm myself with the facts? At present, I do not see why repeat abuse from a public IP should not be stopped by blocking anon. edits from that IP. Genuine contributors can sign up. -- Jon Dowland 29 June 2005 10:51 (UTC)

I'm no expert. All I can tell you is that blocking of anon vandals frequently took my access down before I posted these comments, despite my being signed-in. So many people share this ISP in the UK that there was a period back in December when all access was blocked for over a week (I can reboot to get allocated another IP in the 62.255.64.x series by the ISP, but in this case every IP in their series was subject to a block). For all I know, people were mis-applying blocks, ie, blocks which were for some reason not discriminating between anon and signed-up contributors. Or it might be that ntl (the big UK ISP) has some particular way of serving that defies such discrimination using wiki processes. But in any case, it seems to me more constructive to take two minutes to hand serious anon vandals over to their ISP - it's not like you called the cops, and you're far less likely to get repeat offenders from that strategy. Adhib 10:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I was not aware that the block affected logged-in users too. That of course makes it an unnecessarily brute force action. -- Jon Dowland 12:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Moon Hoax

Hello Adhib - thanks for your help with this article. Perhaps you could take a look at the associated talk page too and claify Theory to his guy. You seem to have some knowledge about this (from your User page) - of course, I believe he is simply being disingenuous. Cheers --PhilipO 22:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adhib, could you move the straw poll on the revision of the article to its own section (by adding an appropriate header)? I sense that the validity of the NPOV tag will continue to be challenged and would like to maintain the thread of that discussion for the sake of clarity. I would make the change myself but I worry that it would be seen by some as an invitation for abuse and example of my 'rampant POV.' and lack of good faith. Numskll 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it's already lost in the noise. I'd encourage you to keep helping to improve this article. Thank you for your attention. Numskll 01:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signal to noise

At Apollo Moon Hoax you said "I've recently had some (temporary) success overhauling an article with similar and related signal:noise ratio problems, and have discovered a yen for more punishment. " Although I haven't looked in on it in about two months, Roswell Incident has the highest noise ratio of any WP article I've seen. You might want to check that out. (I would appreciate it.) Bubba73 (talk), 03:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya. I just have too little time. I'll put it in a file marked 'pending'. Adhib 18:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm making a modest sally into UFO first, to get the measure of the enemy. Adhib 19:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your edits that I've seen, you might be interested in this Wikipedia:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism. Bubba73 (talk), 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, Bubba73 - they look like some nice folks. I'll lurk around 'em for a bit. Adhib 19:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another AFD

I think that this may interest you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics). Thanks, HK 07:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, HK, I only got there today, and it actually didn't do anything for me. How did I give you the impression it might, BTW? Adhib 23:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't recall. However, you might want to pay a visit to Talk:Animal rights. There is a brouhaha over the Nazi issue again, and I recall that you made a useful contribution to the debate last time. --HK 14:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project BLACK Book

This is allegedly similar to the well known Project Blue Book, only that those who report UFO and/or alien contact are literally made to regret reporting these things. All I know about this is that some people also reported their experiences to the tabloid media, and what happened to them, incl. reports of this hyper-secret protocol. If there is evidence, such as a radioactive landing site, that is taken, destroying the lawn or where the UFO landed, alien footprints erased from the dirt by officers' shoes, etc. moving about, and as stated, the witness(es) is made out to be some kind of nut(s) or dopehead, drunk, worse. It is like the Robertson Panel, Project Grudge, Project Blue Book, all rolled into one project. Martial Law 02:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Most edifying, thanks, Martial. Adhib 21:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnogenesis

Hello. I'm looking for background sources for ethnogenesis. From where did this article arise? Thanks Livingintime 16:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea - I encountered the word in an article elsewhere, and saw that the 'pedia lacked an account of it. So I did some quick summarising of the main angles discernible from Google, and there it is. It was intended as the bones of a properly-fleshed out article, but time constraints prevented my return. Hope you can do better! Adhib 18:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 12:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Transhistorical

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Transhistorical, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Ufologists

I have nominated List of Ufologists, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ufologists. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be quite keen to cast off that ship off fools ... as may be plain from the apologetic tone with which I created it ... but I gather others have seen some kind of value in it. The only purpose it served for me was to provide a receptacle into which to let the pus as I attempted to lance the the festering boil that passed for a UFO article. Sorry! Adhib (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Our lake

The article Our lake has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Minor humorous phrase.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Maidonian (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair cop. This was a naive early effort ... happy to see it pruned out. Adhib (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of fear

This is an article that you have edited in the past and you appear to me to be an active editor on Wikipedia today. You may wish to be aware that the article has been nominated for deletion. You can can comment on the proposal by following the link in the panel referring to the proposed deletion at the top of the article. Kind regards --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commodity fetishism

You once put som real effort into this article. Over the past year one editor did a major rewrite. As noted in the last few sections of the talk page I have some doubts about the current version, but I have not made any major edits to the aticle. When you have time can you reread it, comment or edit as you see fit? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Employee engagement

NASA,yes! I'm got a friend whose father revealed to his children on the evening of July 20, 1969 that he'd been helping to build the module that was landing at that moment in human history. She wrote a song about it, the chorus to which goes:

But I'm the man who took up tools and laid out the designs

Of starships! I'm the one who built their sleek and burnished lines

I'm every man who ever fashioned cold refinéd steel

Into the dreams of spaceflight; I'm the one who made them real!

We make a distinction in the labor movement between the staffer who's there because he or she has the dream of workers together; and the porkchoppers, for whom this is just another paycheck. This kind of real engagement is hard to reproduce if you're selling 3/8" hex nuts, or plaques with the butt of a cartoon cat on them; but I do see it sometimes among booksellers (book junkies, working to feed their habits), and in certain parts of civil service, cynical accusations to the contrary. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Adhib. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Adhib. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Adhib. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for creating the page about Transhistoricity.

//Pauloroboto (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]