Jump to content

User talk:Miss Sarita/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 (2018)Archive 2 (2019)Archive 3 (2020)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
For a list of archives, please visit here.
 

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links. You are encouraged to change

<font color="#000066">[[User:Miss Sarita|'''Miss Sarita''']]</font> <sup><font color="#0000FF">[[User talk:Miss Sarita|'''''Confer''''']]</font></sup> : Miss Sarita Confer

to

[[User:Miss Sarita|<b style="color: #000066">Miss Sarita</b>]] <sup style="color: #0000FF">[[User talk:Miss Sarita|'''''Confer''''']]</sup> : Miss Sarita Confer

—Anomalocaris (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris: My biggest apologies. I have changed my signature to the one you have advised me to use. Thank you for letting me know! Miss Sarita Talk to me 21:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: The above markup will not offer a link to my talk page (i.e., hovering over "Talk to me" reads as plain text, not as a link). Not quite sure if this is a WP problem or something to do with my browser. Figured I should let you know. Thanks! Miss Sarita (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize; we aren't born knowing this stuff! And thanks for your cooperation! A "feature" of Wikipedia is that when pages link to themselves, the text that would be linked is unlinked and bolded. As you have discovered, adding #top to the end of the destination part of the link restores the link to normal behavior even when the link goes to the same page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a big giant DUH to me! I was trying to click on it from my own talk page, so that was 100% user error! Is it Friday yet? I understand now. Thank you for your help! Miss Sarita Talk to me 04:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your contributions to RX and other Theory of a Deadman related articles. I hope my initial reverts didn't start things off on the wrong foot - I do appreciate your efforts - it's nice seeing another experienced editor working in the hard rock territory - it seems few do these days. Theory of a Deadman's articles have always been in awful shape considering how popular they are too, so its overdue. Anyways, we probably won't cross paths all the time - my efforts recently are more about hard rock songs than Theory of a Deadman or Highly Suspect in particular, but let me know if you need an assistance, whether it be in regards to editing, or admin assistance. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: No, not at all. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes is necessary when an editor has been staring at their own writing for hours on end and, to a certain extent, I think all experienced editors initially give each other a little pushback when they're first introduced to each other (just as a way of subconsciously "testing" each other). :-)
I did want to ask you for your advice on one thing, though: It looks like Theory of a Deadman is indeed changing their name (to just "Theory"). I have two sources, including a video interview (on Youtube). Is this something we need to take action on in regards to mentioning it in articles (or changing the article in general)? If so, I am willing to put in the work to do so.
Thank you for your kind words and your advice is always welcome, especially since I'm still getting back into it and trying to familiarize myself with everything. I have been working on the "Rx (Medicate)" article in my sandbox and will be introducing it section by section so that people can have time to look it over and edit/revise/make suggestions. Miss Sarita Talk to me 16:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did notice the other day that their Youtube channel/songs were just listed as "Theory", and thought it was strange. However, it looks like they're still mostly commonly referred to as Theory of a Deadman - Billboard refer to them by their full name in articles and their most up to date chart listings, and retail listings still use the full name too. In my opinion, I think we should treat it like Stone Temple Pilots does with STP - I think its good to mention in the lead of the main article, and that they started using "Theory" in the recent part of the history section, but I think we should stick to their old name for the article title and general usage. WP:COMMONNAME syncs up with this approach too. We can wait and see how things play out down the line too. Sometimes bands due stuff like this only temporarily too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: That's what I was thinking as well (I reverted an edit on their article last month that was related to this), but when I actually heard them verify the name change, I figured I should start asking the WP experts and others who have knowledge of the band. I will mention it in the main article and figure out where to mention it briefly in the recent part of the "History" section. If I see anything differently in my research, I'll hit you up for more advice. Also, if you see any hard rock articles that need a little "beautifying", let me know! Thank you! Miss Sarita Talk to me 18:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Rx (Medicate)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rx (Medicate) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC) The article Rx (Medicate) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Rx (Medicate) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC) The article Rx (Medicate) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rx (Medicate) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Thank you! And thanks for helping me get on the right track with this article! — Miss Sarita 01:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rx (Medicate)

@Babble gab1978:You're awesome! Thank you so much and please let me know if I can help with anything! :-) — Miss Sarita 22:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problems; I've removed a fair bit of off-topic text (mostly about Shatterproof) and excessively quoted lyrics per WP:LYRICS, etc., which you may wish to review. If you restore these, please bear in mind the GA criteria. Also; "Babble gab1978"? :D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Baffle gab1978: Dude, is it Friday yet? First of all, I apologize for typing your name incorrectly. (Is it obvious yet why I needed a copy-edit of this article?) Second, I wanted to thank you so much for your assistance. I have been watching the edits as you have been making them (super stalker-like, I know), and I wholeheartedly agree with most of them. The only thing I would like to question is the information regarding the lapel pins in the Shatterproof section. These pins literally have the name of the song on them, so wouldn't it be considered directly relevant to the article? Also, everything that was there before you made such a beautiful and thorough sweep was approved as GA status last week. Would that bear any weight on this? The next trip for this article is a peer review, so if you think that particular information would cause me trouble, we will leave it out, but I wanted to get some clarification first. — Miss Sarita 00:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and feedback on my c/e; I'm glad it's useful. I must have missed the text saying the band's lapel pins bear the song's name; yes it's directly relevant and I'll go back and re-read it. It shouldn't cause any problems at Peer Review.
I skimmed the GA review and I know it's not FAC but I'm surprised the reviewer missed some of the problems I found, such as several WP:SAY problems ("expressed that", etc), compliance with which is part of GA criterion 1b. Having said that, reviewing is a different skill to editing and we're all here to improve articles. Your misspelling made me chuckle; I do babble quite often! :D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Baffle gab1978:Thank you for editing that information back in. I think the reviewer who did the GA review found so much wrong with the prose, he may have lost focus regarding the basics, and that's more my fault for not paying closer attention to guidelines such as WP:SAY (thank you for this, by the way...I could've really used this as I was writing the article). All in all, you and the GA reviewer have helped make this article so much better and I will be modeling future articles based on the feedback from both you and the GA reviewer. Thank you so much for donating your time! — Miss Sarita 03:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Straight Jacket has been accepted

Straight Jacket, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bkissin:Thank you! — Miss Sarita 21:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discography FLs

You wrote, "Thank you soooooo much for your help! I owe you!". Well, if you really want to help out, I've got two mini-projects on the go - see User:Ritchie333/London termini and User:Ritchie333/Genesis, which each aim to make a good topic. The first's containing list article, London station group passed FLC yesterday (so no problem there), the second, Genesis discography, I'm stuck for sources on all the chart positions. I can do the lead and other supporting information, but I've only got book sources for the UK charts, not anywhere else (and even that doesn't have accurate release dates, which has been a pain in the rear when taking the respective album articles to GA). So I guess you don't have to be a Genesis fan to find sources for that lot (oh, and if you think Genesis is "Phil Collins and a bunch of other guys", go and listen to "The Knife" from Trespass, which is not only a classic rock track, but Collins isn't even playing on it!) I'm not sure you'll be able to do much as I don't believe the chart positions are truly verifiable online as they all predate the internet era, but it's possible from having done a discography FL before you'll know where to ferret this information out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Yes! I'm just finishing up a peer review, but I will take a look at this and try to get started on it tonight! I'll keep you posted on whether I can find anything. (And thank you for the song/album suggestion...I'm always on the hunt for new music.)
And again, thank you so much for answering my desperate plea for reviews! Many users have put a lot of time into that discography over the years (even though it isn't all that extensive), and there has been far too much blood, sweat, and tears shed during this process (see Ojorojo's part of the FLC review). I would hate to see it fail due to a lack of interest. Your support helps and may be the deciding factor, depending on what Ojorojo wishes to do. I appreciate your help! — Miss Sarita 16:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as new music goes, I can recommend Kat Wright and the Indomitable Soul Band (I rescued their article from deletion), who tour the East Coast on a regular basis and are an absolutely brilliant kick-ass live band. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!

Hi Miss Sarita, I wanted to thank you for your excellent peer review of The Marshall Mathers LP. I'm so sorry for the late response, I didn't check the page for a while. Your suggestions will be used to make the article great! Basilisk4u (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Basilisk4u: You're so very welcome. I see lots of good things happening to that article. Let me know if you need/want any help with it. — Miss Sarita 07:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your name

What does it mean? (does it mean a poem? - which is what I noticed on the internet) It has such a lovely pronunciation to it, thus thought I'll tell you. Lourdes 05:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Thank you. "Sarita" is the Spanish or Italian version of the name Sara (which is my first name). A dear friend who is Mexican-American and fluent in both English and Spanish always called me Sarita. The name just stuck. :-) — Miss Sarita 06:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up Call (Theory of a Deadman album)

You might notice that MOS:ALBUM was changed from saying "use production" to "producer" two years ago by the user Walter Gorlitz without consensus, and we've had a disagreement quite recently about that on that article's talk page, with four other editors preferring "production" over "producer", and Walter Gorlitz being the only one who wants "producer" there because he thinks "production" means more than what a record producer does. Walter Gorlitz's choice or any one user's choice to change a page without consensus does not constitute a style guide we should follow, regardless of what that page is. Also, I believe "master engineering" is correct, as the person clearly engineered the master recording. Ss112 08:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Hi. Thank you very much for your message and for directing me to the appropriate discussion. I do agree with Walter Gorlitz regarding his opinion that the term "production" entails more than what a "producer" does, hence why the subsection in the credits is labeled "Production", yet lists multiple duties (e.g., "engineering", "mixing", etc.). Everyone in that particular subsection is part of the "production" team, but not everyone is the "producer" of the album. However, I understand everyone else's opinions as well (yours included).
Could this be a situation where an exception to the rule has to be made since the term "production" seems to be the only role in which multiple duties could be involved and therefore leads to too much ambiguity? To me, it seems redundant and, quite frankly, ugly to name the subsection "Production" and then label a person's duty as "production". As the producer of Wake Up Call, Martin Terefe could have had his hand in all of the aspects of the production process but we don't know this for a fact. Labeling his duties as "production" insinuates that he did, while labeling him a "producer" means that he played a specific role that could have or could not have entailed a combination or all of the duties named in the "Production" subsection. (Does that make sense? It's Monday...it's early...and I haven't had enough caffeine yet.) This seems to be a matter of adhering to consistency rather than "rhyme or reason" (since both sides make excellent points). So, for the sake of staying constant, I'm more than willing to change it to "production" and stick to that opinion for future musical articles that I work on.
Regarding "master engineering" vs. "mastering engineering", I still believe that "master engineering" is incorrect. The person who performs this specific duty is not called a "master engineer"; they're called a "mastering engineer" because they are an engineer of the art of "mastering". As I'm sure you already know, "mastering" is a process in the audio world; it doesn't just entail handling the master copy of a recording. In addition, the term "master engineering" is just far too ambiguous (which I believe is the entire problem of our discussion, haha!). All of this ambiguity is why I believe that "roles" should be used in "Personnel" sections—not duties. But that's a whole 'nother topic.
Sorry for the long response. Maybe I have had enough caffeine... :-) — Miss Sarita 17:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing accidental block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I believe I have been accidentally blocked from editing. The only reason for the block is "LTA", and it lists IP 71.198.0.0/16, but I have never received a warning of any type. Please advise. — Miss Sarita 01:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Block modified, welcome back! SQLQuery me! 02:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies - Would you be able to look at this request, please? SQLQuery me! 01:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:SQL, the range is used by a longterm prolific socker; thanks. I was hoping I could do this without collateral damage--I've unchecked one of the boxes; Miss Sarita, you should be able to edit now. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so it worked? Yeah, sorry you got caught up in that--there's somewhere out there in your part of the world who's a serious nuisance. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies: Sorry, I probably should've mentioned that I'm good to go on editing now. I'm in California...we tend to be a nuisance to everyone. Haha! Again, thank you for your help! — Miss Sarita 02:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, we hosted a few folks from Southern California last night and GUESS WHAT they're looking into buying a house in Alabama and moving. Of course a house here is only a third or a quarter of the price. No, I don't blame California for anything: I love it. Later, Drmies (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I'm late to the discussion (see below), but Miss Sarita is definitely a good-faith editor with some featured content under their belt (also see below). Might it be worth granting her IP block exemption, then we can switch the hard block back on (assuming it's still a problem). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Ritchie333, I'm all for that. There's just a small batch of editors that have IPBE, but Miss Sarita can certainly try to make a case via UTRS. It is unfortunate that editors of good faith are hurt sometimes by what to them seem draconian measures--as an admin, though, you know how serious the vandalism can get sometimes. Thank you Ritchie--and I was saddened to hear your namesake had to drop out of the Tour. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies: and @Ritchie333: Thank you for the advice! It was unfortunate that I got caught up in the particular block of an incessant vandal, but it wasn't for long and I completely understand the reason for blocks as a way of countering vandalism. I will look into this suggestion and hopefully be able to make a request. — Miss Sarita 16:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's easy to resolve - just create three more accounts, open them all on different browser tabs, and get them all to break 3RR by edit-warring with yourself. Then you'll be able to send a UTRS request (although actually getting unblocked again may be difficult....) (for context, see here) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha!!! — Miss Sarita 17:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your help on expanding The Resident. The article wouldn't be anywhere close to where it is now if you hadn't written all those edit summaries! Thank you!! TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I vaguely recall asking you if you wouldn't mind working on this, then I rather inconveniently went on wikibreak for a bit immediately afterwards. Did anything happen? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ritchie333: Welcome back! I did not edit the Genesis discography article directly (I wanted to run everything through you first), but I left quite a few comments on your talk page shortly before your unexpected wikibreak, here (the discussion had since been archived). I was waiting for a response to make sure I was looking for all the correct types of references before continuing my research, and then real life got a little busy for me, so I worked here and there on other articles while I waited for your return. I'm more than willing and able to get back on this if you still need/want assistance. — Miss Sarita 16:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, recently on Talk:Europe '72/GA1 I bemoaned my ignorance at chart stats sources, and not knowing who was any good at them, but I've since discovered some nice templates that make things like RIAA certifications easier. I think the sources you mentioned in that archive talk page link are all good, and I'm sure I can uncover the remaining ones like the box set with a bit of spit and polish, and possibly also a trip to a library / bookshop to pick up more recent source material. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: So sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. How are you doing on this project? — Miss Sarita 17:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at User:Ritchie333/Genesis, out of 15 album articles, 7 are GAs already, leaving 8, though LowSelfEstidle seems to have done a lot of grunt work and just needs a bit of a copyedit and checking sources for GA, so I'll get 'em done soon enough. I've been distracted this past week by doing a bunch of Led Zeppelin album articles, and also taking a few days off to go and look at some bloke with a giant bell-end (as you do). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at This is a featured list. Click here for more information. Theory of a Deadman discography instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
David.moreno72 07:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Miss Sarita! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! David.moreno72 07:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Theory of a Deadman, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: This is now the second time you've saved my behind on a Theory of a Deadman list. I almost cried when this was declined as I've literally spent all day on this plus several additional hours over the past couple weeks. I really need to start repaying favors. Hahaha! If I may have your permission, I'm gonna pick through your list here and try to get a promotion or two in (hopefully soon...as you know, life can get a bit cuh-razy as it is for me right now!). I'll let you know which one of my sandboxes I load an article into so you can check in on my progress if you wish. Hope you're well and thank you so much for passing this AFC. :-) — Miss Sarita 09:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repaying favours? Great - how are you with babysitting? Just make sure the kids have cleaned their teeth and gone to the loo before bed, and there's a full Netflix subscription on the telly and coffee in the cupboard. 😀 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Not to toot my own horn, but I'm a pretty awesome babysitter! Although, I spoil kids a bit too much and am therefore rarely asked to watch my friends' kids again unless the lengthy list of babysitters is already entirely booked up. Hehehe! — Miss Sarita 09:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is I've got four awesome babysitters already who do it for free and have known the kids for their entire lifetime, which is some stiff competition to be up against. Ah well. Regarding Genesis, I picked up Phil Collins autobiography over the weekend which might have some more detail in it; other than that, the Genesis Museum has contemporary newspaper and magazine pieces which can be used as sources (providing you cite the original work). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Hmm, grandparents. That's not a competition for me...that's an already lost battle. I listen to Amazon Music at work; I just checked and it looks like Genesis is an artist they include, so perhaps listening to them while at work will give me some inspiration and knowledge (plus, remember, I'm all about finding great new music). I'll definitely see what I can do and keep you posted. — Miss Sarita 09:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Miss Sarita. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Zac Efron performances (December 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Zac Efron instead.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Zac Efron filmography already exists, you should discuss at that talk page whether to split it off from the main article.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
For a list of archives, please visit here.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miss_Sarita/Archive_1&oldid=1061050692"