User talk:Rigley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Splittist! I am Marcus Qwertyus and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marcus Qwertyus 00:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletions declined

Hello Splittist. Just to let you know, I've declined your speedy-delete suggestions for Underwater (band) and for Tibetan Volunteers for Animals. Please ensure you have reviewed the criteria for speedy deletion, and be aware that it is unusual to speedy articles that have existed for a significant amount of time (in these cases, several years). Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Another one is Clive Arrowsmith, which has plenty of potential sources (from a Google News search) that can be added. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Paul. Thanks for your concern on my speedies; I revisit the criteria on every meditation, but I am only beginning to discover the informal conventions about the various deletion processes. In truth, I disagree that the time a subject has spent on Wikipedia unchallenged counts for its being more or less encyclopedic. However, in the future, I will generally use the slower nominations in the interest of congeniality. Regards, Splittist (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

All right – thanks for that, Splittist. Best, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations

Hello Splittist, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to books. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. SoWhy 10:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic flag

Hi, I appreciated your contributions on the article "Ethnic flag": every input can be useful to improve this controversial theme. My work on this page has been oriented to validate the largest number of entries with the citation of a reliable source. Now, in the case of the minorities of the PRC, the first thing we have to do is ask ourselves if those peoples are or are not definable as ethnic groups. If they are not ethnicities, the entries have to be removed. On the base of my knowlege and on the base of the available sources, Uyghurs, Tibetans and Mongols are ethnic groups. Therefore, we can jump to the second step: have those groups a flag which simbolize them? In the case of Uyghurs, the flag you entered is properly an historical flag, as you can read in FOTW, and no source indicates a present use of that banner. Therefore, the adding of that flag is not correct. On the other hand, the flag previously displayed (a variant) is reported in Flags of Aspirant Peoples as the flag of Uyghurs. Moreover, nowadays, it is adopted as a symbol of Uyghur identity (infact the flag is reported in UNPO web site and it is universally displayed if you search the words Uyghur + flag in Google images [1]). So, I believe the previous flag should be restored. Now, we can face the Tibetan case. It's indisputable that the flag of Tibet is adopted as a symbol of the claims of freedom and indipendence of that people. At the same time, the flag is also a symbol of tibetan national identity (as reported by savetibet.org) and, for this reason, it can be included in the article in object. I have more doubts about the flag of Mongols of Inner Mongolia. Although it is commonly reported as the vexillum of Inner Mongolia, the flag previously displayed is the banner of a political party. Therefore its removal would seem correct. In conclusion, my proposal is: restore the flags of East Turkestan and Tibet (adding a citation), without restore the flag of Inner Mongolian People's Party. Your remarks. The White Lion (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Both UNPO and Flags of Aspirant Peoples acknowledge that it is a flag for "East Turkestan". If you'll skim the History of Xinjiang article, you will see that that particular territory is a lot more nuanced than East Turkestan = Uyghurs. I don't think the Kokbayraq flag should be added on the basis of the results of google images, which links to some very partisan and amateur websites. We need reliable sources. The Sami flag is a good example. Kokbayraq is not.

The link on savetibet.org clearly states that that was the flag of Tibet, the state. It claims some symbolism from the various ancestor ethnic groups, but I can't find independent verification. Even when activists unfurl the flag and chant slogans, it's "Free Tibet", not "Free Tibetans".

Finally, any flag that purports to represent a certain people in the People's Republic of China should be suspect. By law, cities and provinces are not allowed to adopt their own symbols. (The exceptions are Hong Kong and Macao). What use is a flag for Zhuang people, for example, if the only Zhuang who have seen it are those outside of their homeland? It's a romantic but untenable idea. Splittist (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Buddhist terrorism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Buddhist terrorism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist terrorism. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cossde (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Genocides in history, you may be blocked from editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, I don't know why you call this blanking. I provided reasonable explanations for the content I removed in two (unrelated) edits in the summaries. If you disagree with the edits, why don't you discuss them on the article's talk page or on mine? Also, I am aware of the rules; please use personal messages instead of templates. Splittist (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Spratly Islands dispute

Good job creating the new page. I tweaked the template a bit. Philg88 ^contact 05:18, 25 December 2024 UTC [refresh]

Unblock request

{{unblock|"Nothing but hardcore POV pushing" (block reason) is an unfair characterization of my contributions and behavior. For one, I've not identified with any POV in particular through talk pages or otherwise, and therefore don't feel inclined to defend any. Also, most of my edits are transparent and unchallenged, and fill in gaps on Wikipedia on topics such as New Marriage Law, Padma Choling, and Zhang Guohua. On the rare occasions where I've had content disputes with other editors, I have worked to resolve them amicably and forge mutually-agreeable wording, such as in Talk:Genocides in history#Tibet. If YellowMonkey wants to elevate a content dispute over an article (I don't know which one), to disputing my conduct, there are many options for dispute resolution other than a summary indef block.}}

I completely do not understand this block and cannot relate the block reason, "Nothing but hardcore POV pushing", to this user's contributions as long as the blocking admin does not explain it. I'm putting the unblock request on hold and would like to ask YellowMonkey what POV this user is pushing, and how (with diffs), and whether there has been any sort of warning, and why an immediate indefinite block rather than a shorter block is appropriate.  Sandstein  20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see now WP:ANI#Request for indef block review: Quigley.  Sandstein  19:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have some comments to make about the diffs that Salvio giuliano criticized in ANI. The article Tibet is about an ethno-cultural region like Ireland; not a political or administrative region. Articles on the topic as a whole suffer from being overly politicized; I discussed this in Talk:Tibet#Lead section/too much sovereignty echoing a common concern in the talk archives. Cautiously removing articles like History of Tibet from the "see also" section conform with the manual of style guideline that links already integrated into the article's text should not be duplicated in "see also". Look at the "see also"s for FAs Australia and India: does the seealso section look more like before my change or after it? Actions like these can only be seen as "Chinese Communist Party internet policing" if you've already made some big assumptions about me, and are judging my contributions through that lens, instead of assuming good faith. Quigley (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I don't think this user should be blocked. He doesn't push POV any more than average for a contentious topic. The fact that he has a somewhat different perspective on Tibet than most other editors have is valuable, because it imposes a discipline on articles that is hard to achieve otherwise.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your advice, but this situation is not good for me. If you wish to take a better look at the situation, look at my comments on the RFC/U.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

List of borders

Hi Quigley,

The purpose of the article is to name the age in which the border between two present-day independent countries have emerged. So, the dates refer to independent India and independent China and not between the United Kingdom and Tibet. It has been proposed to be less strict, but than the whole article should be changed. We could implement other dates, but not for just one country, otherwise the structure of the article doesn't apply anymore.Daanschr (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and have changed the date back from 1914 to 1947. Quigley (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Quigley.Daanschr (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Spratly Islands dispute

Hi Quiqley, It seems that this article is now blocked in China so I can no longer edit it. It still requires some cleanup and Wikification of the references in particular. I will leave it in your capable hands. Best Philg88 ^contact 05:18, 25 December 2024 UTC [refresh]

I'm sorry to hear that it has been blocked. Wikipedia does allow for, even advises editors on editing past the Golden Shield Project. I have some ideas on how to cleanup the article: like introducing a history section, consistently organizing counterclaims on claimants' claims, and hiding the giant table of occupations by default. What exactly did you mean when you said 'cleanup'? You also may want to conscript some other editors in the effort, as the glut of time I've had to edit here is coming to a fast close. Quigley (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. TOR is detected and surprise, surprise the Golden Shield Project article is blocked. However, thanks to your advice I may have found a way throught this accursed wall :) so don't worry about the Spratly Islands dispute, NPOV assured. All the best, Philg88 ^contact 05:18, 25 December 2024 UTC [refresh]

RfC Teeninvestor

Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In your diff here, would you consider changing one word only?

I wonder if "diabolical" is the best word-choice in this context? --Tenmei (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a bold word choice, I do admit, but one that mirrored what I understood from your subtle, tiptoe-around-the-issue language. If not, then I misunderstood your message, and you will have to explain it to me again in different words. Quigley (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Uighur in Guantanamo

You wrote: "Not charged of the crime not necessarily = didn't commit the crime. Does the People v. Jackson article so brazenly call Michael Jackson "innocent" in the lead because he was not convicted?"

So could you please provide the evidence that they commited a crime. They won their habeas corpus as there was no evidence of any wrongdoing. IQinn (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two distinct concepts here. One is breaking the law and one is doing the deed. We can't prove or disprove the latter with any reliable measure of certainty, but the court that is qualified to measure the former did not qualify enough evidence that they broke the law, therefore they were not convicted as such. But you are making a positive claim that these men did nothing wrong, which is unnecessary and POV. In my revision, I noted the (lack of) conviction, so why don't you let that speak for itself? Quigley (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your revision is POV and violates WP:NPOV. We can not leave out that they are innocent. "Not convicted"?? They have never been charged with anything and they won their habeas corpus = no credible evidence of any wrongdoing! What's their crime? What did they do? IQinn (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You should know what they were accused of better than I do. Or maybe not; the article was little help in finding information about their actual case, preferring to preach their innocence and sob about their human rights. They were accused of being enemy combatants; of fighting against the United States at the Battle of Tora Bora. Because the government could not substantiate this specific charge a court ordered them released from detention. But in the course of the proceedings, it was discovered that they had trained in terrorist training camps—that's where they were picked up, after all—, and that's why U.S. politicians don't want to resettle them at home.

"Innocent" has some strong emotional connotations. So while these men were not proven to have fought against the United States at that particular time in that particular battle to the satisfaction of the court, they are not exactly random law-abiding citizens plucked from the streets of Kashgar. I'm not saying this to argue the specifics of the case with you; it's just that the situation is more nuanced than "they're innocent; they should be free", and the article should try to reflect the whole drama, and not try to make sweeping moral judgments. Quigley (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You make me laugh :)). Innocent has no emotional connotations. This is just ridiculous. I ask you what is their crime? What is it? Innocent until proven guilty. But not only that. The allegations against the Uighurs have been proven wrong by the Bush administration and by the courts and the Obama administration also said they did nothing wrong. Your POV is incredible and looking at your editing history i was thinking if you do not have a general pro China POV.

You are so wrong. The government had 8 years to bring forward specific charges but they did not. In fact they were already cleared from any wrongdoing in 2004 and 2005 by the Bush administration. Including the allegation that they trained in terrorist camps. They were cleared from the Bush and the Obama administration. In addition they were cleared by the courts and they won there habeas corpus. They are simply innocent. IQinn (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else I can say: you keep asking the same questions, despite my answering them. It doesn't matter whether you or I think that they are innocent or guilty, as Wikipedia doesn't have a moral agenda. This reminds me of an example on one of the policy pages. I can't find it now, but it said that even though Adolf Hitler was a horrible human being, the article could not say this outright; it could only let the facts speak for themselves. So stop pushing to label these men as "innocent" and let the facts speak for themselves.

As a sidenote, and this is not a conversation I want to pursue, I am on the Wikipedia camp that says that a user's personal opinions are not relevant to his or her editing. My edits should be judged on their merits, and by the community's rules so far I believe they pass. Quigley (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I keep asking the same question because you have not answered it. I ask you what is their crime?

You might have another look at the article it does not make clear that they are innocent the article is actually quite a mess so i think there is no problem to keep the word innocent until that has been cleaned up otherwise it would be a violation of WP:NPOV and possible BLP issue.

Could i ask you why your last account was blocked? You also say you are editing under two other names. You would gain more trust in the community if you could disclose these names. IQinn (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you at least please answer if User:Children of the dragon is one of your other user names? IQinn (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed what is POV and what is not above, and I assure you this is not a BLP issue because nobody is suggesting we add libel or gossip to the page. As to why WilliamWater was blocked, that's because the blocking admin decided to do a checkuser on me as part of a SPI on someone else. We proved not to be the same, but he blocked WilliamWater and this account for some reason I still don't understand. I was unblocked because even though I had multiple accounts, I used them according to policy. I.e., I didn't use them to shill for myself on discussions, didn't use them to edit war, and in the case of WilliamWater, simply got bored of the username and I didn't accumulate enough edits to qualify for a name change, the clerks suggest one create a new account in these cases.

As for the two other accounts, I don't still use them, and I've clearly indicated that they did not edit topics I do now, which are China, India, Tibet, etc. The reason I don't disclose them, and I am just rehashing my userpage at this point, is because I edited some revealing topics, like the article for my home town. As the policy page says, this is an acceptable reason to have multiple accounts, especially when one is editing controversial topics, and this one is. If it isn't obvious already, I am not User:Children of the dragon. And if you have any doubt as to the usefulness of Wikipedia's multiple accounts policy, this discussion is a great example, because I could have put myself at risk for real-life harassment just for having this simple content dispute with you. Quigley (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody want you to put your life at risk but please understand that your edit in support of User:Children of the dragon came just an hour after his and both of you have never edited Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay in all the years it exists.

You !vote in the same fashion here [2] (your name there is "Splittist") and there are some articles that you both have edited with the same POV.

Sure i understand your situation but please also do understand our situation. There are too many Socks recently. Please accept my apology in case i start an SPI and it will be shown that you are not a Sock. Though i need more time in checking. I have only started one SPI since i am here and in that case i was right. Kind regards. IQinn (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope I can convince you the Uyghur edit was a coincidence. I'll tell you how I got to your Uyghur article. I did a huge rewrite of the dysfunctional East Turkestan Islamic Movement article on 7 August (diff here) and in the process trimmed down a section on the Guantanamo Uyghurs. The main article that it linked to was yours, and I saw that it had some serious structural damage, but I just added it to my watchlist since I didn't want to do another complete rewrite so soon. Weeks later (today), it came up again on my watchlist, and I thought Children of the Dragon's edit sensible and overdue.

As for that AfD, I came through that article through CotD's contributions (having come across his edits since he is a prolific editor of China articles), and I thought it was a worthy article, and so I added some text to the article to preempt someone nominating it for deletion because they didn't like the subject matter. Surely enough, someone did. (I am participating in an eerily similar AfD here) Being my first AfD, I was overconfident and thought I didn't have to do anything else besides make my original comment. Besides those two areas where our fates intersected, I honestly don't think there are many similarities between our writing, editing styles, etc. Quigley (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• WRT the Uyghurs' innocence, User:Iqinn has asserted this before, and has ignored other contributors' good faith explanations that we can't baldly state they were innocent, without lapsing from WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VER. When good WP:RS say they were innocent, we can quote, summarize or paraphrase those comments, so long as we properly attribute them.

  I've read all their transcripts, and I largely believe the Uyghurs. In particular I believe that the main activity at the camp where they were living was construction -- not training. I believe their testimony that the camp possessed just a single AK-47. I agree with them that those who spent a couple of hours being shown how to use the rifle were not being given military training, let alone terrorist training.

  How did the USA come to regard them as enemies? I suggest through aerial or satellite surveillance they recognized that there were no children, women, livestock in the compound, and simply assumed it was a military training camp, and never considered the possibility they were refugees, constructing a refugee camp.

  On the other hand there were some elements of their testimony that I thought raised some issues. Who was paying for the construction materials, and for the food that one of them had been hired to bring in? I dunno. Their transcripts don't say. But a couple of them acknowledge a militant leader visiting the camp. Those who knew of this leader were adamant that he would never have had anything to do with 9-11, or with Osama bin Laden. However the public record does strongly suggest he did have an association with OBL.

  WRT participation in the battle of Tora Bora, Tora Bora is an isolated high mountain pass. The Guantanamo analysts had very limited understanding of Afghanistan's geography, and they alleged captives were present at Tora Bora when they were clear across Nangarhar Province in Jalalabad.

  21 of the 22 Uyghurs who were held in Guantanamo were born in China, and most had traveled to Pakistan or Afghanistan, as refugees, just a few months prior to 9-11. One exception was Sadik Turkistani. He was born in Saudi Arabia. His parents were Uyghur guest workers, so by Saudi law he is Chinese, even though he had never been to China. He acknowledges he traveled to Afghanistan to smuggle drugs. The USA never charged him with drug-smuggling, but I am reminded of him when Iqinn insists the Uyghurs were all "innocent". Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

  That was very useful, for both my personal understanding and also for a potential rewrite of the article, thank you. I wonder now how we could proceed with the lead. IQinn has buttressed his/her latest revert with a bunch of sources, most of which do have the word "innocent" somewhere, but not always as a characterization of the Uyghurs (I will make the generalization that more reliable sources quote officials who use the word to describe the result of the proceedings, and less reliable sources like OpEds call them innocent directly). Perhaps a RfC is in order? Quigley (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

14th Dalai Lama

nice work on 14th Dalai Lama. so many articles here about contemporary figures read like press releases and news stories. thanks for making this an encyclopedia. Kingturtle (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! While I appreciate Wikipedia's unique ability to accumulate a history of recent news articles (International reactions to the Qana airstrike for example), it does inhibit it from becoming an accessible general resource. On this article, there's still a lot of work to be done. Quigley (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Responding to you...

Thanks for your help and information. BTW how dumb does that ass IQuinn has to be to assume that you are my sock puppet, lol. Anyways, too many assholes on wikipedia I've run into lately, I'm not even surprised anymore, as to be expected. For all I care he can shove a stick of dynamite up his ass and light it.

OH yeah regarding that Buddhist Terrorism article, I did have some later thoughts on it, thought I might share it with you here:

As a scientist, I try to be as impartial and unbiased as possible, but we are all human and I think sometimes POV ideas do get slipped into articles via edits from time to time. So after hindsight, I'm going to concede (on one aspect only) to those Buddhists Wikipedians from Sri Lanka (who wanted the article to be deleted) - that I should NOT try to purposely create the concept of Buddhist Terrorism (if no major (Western) source has ever cited so. Let me explain in details what I mean:

Professor Richard Dawkins has said the following (or a form of it) on several occasions: you can almost 100% positively say that what the 9/11 hijackers did was motivated by religion (he often said this to rebuke the argument that Stalin and Mao caused so many deaths in their respective countries in the NAME of atheism). Some religious people have argued that NO, but in fact what those hijackers did were motivated by the socio-economic and political turmoils in their respective countries. I now believe that BOTH of these viewpoints are correct, to a certain degree, here's my expounding on these views by taking another example: Palestinian suicide bombers blow themselves up because they are trying to take revenge for what they consider as the religious and ethnically motivated economic, military, social, and political actions taken against them by the Israelis (and the West). Perhaps if they weren't Muslims (who believe that martyrdom would lead to them going to heaven), they might NOT BE SO EAGER TO blow themselves up. So my point being, regardless of the ORIGINS of the conflicts there, the definite actions of the Palestinian suicide bombers to detonate themselves are definitely CATALYZED by their religion, but I think anybody in their position might need to take drastic actions against an oppressor.

So the same goes for those Buddhists who happen to commit crimes (contrary to their religious teachings) as well, perhaps it's not completely religious-based, but there may be many other factors there that's not apparent on the surface. BUT you see I'm not conceding to the idea that there are no Buddhist Terrorists, I'm really saying that if anything, we might need to reconsider ALL of religious terrorism as a whole, on Wikipedia, for example.

Anyways, that was a difficult point, I hope I explained it properly. BTW, I will still try to gather information regarding Buddhists who commit terrorist-like acts, because there's still probably a good location to put such information - they should not be hidden from public view on Wikipedia. Children of the dragon (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah I noticed you've sort of "rebuked" the main point of which I had conceded to those guy in the AfD discussion...I think you are of course right, religions are involved there for those Christian, Muslim conflicts. Looks like we need to dig deeper into these Buddhist-involved conflicts as well. Children of the dragon (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

nonviolence

just fyi, if you're interested, we've started a new project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Nonviolence. Kingturtle (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I am interested! While I won't commit my name to the members' list for now, I will take a look at the articles within the project's scope and consider what I can do to improve them. Quigley (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ye Xiaowen

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

flagicons

Saw your removal of flagicons from Asian Canadian and concur; there's too much room for mis-use and national flags belie "national origin" e,g. many Chinese speakers may be from Singapore or Vietnam or of course Taiwan, so China's flag is inappropriate. See WP:FLAGCRUFT. I spent quite a bit of time taking flags off various ethnic group pages for Latin America; e.g. German Peruvian as German-speakers may originate in Austria, Russia, Hungary, Bohemia/Moravia (today's Czech Republic, roughly), Poland and Romania etc...even France; similarly someone tried to use the Palestinian flag on "Palestinian Chileans" or the Syrian flag for Syrian Peruvians and the like, but most of those were Christian who came before the creation of either the PLO or the Syrian state.....national flags should not be used as decor, or for artificial flag-waving....Skookum1 (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Jingjing and Chacha

Hello, Rigley. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request. You may view the reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Photography reply}} template.