User talk:Cromium/Archive 1

tagging images for missing copyright information
You have recently tagged a number of pages as missing copyright information. So far, every image I've looked at is usable on Wikiversity, one page was redundant and unused. The images are usable here with a "non-free use rationale." I have supplied such a rationale for some files. It is much easier to tag a file as missing copyright, and template a user, often a user who is long gone, than to look at the usage, find original files where possible, and decide if a fair use claim is allowable. Are you willing to help with that? You can see what I've done with the files you tagged where I removed the missing copyright warning.

Thanks for helping clean up Wikiversity. Some of these pages, at least, have been on a list of pages missing fair use rationales. It's an issue of too many chiefs and not enough Indians. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , sorry if it seemed like I charged in with all guns blazing (perhaps a Commons mentality). I'll follow your lead, Chief, and see if I can help in the way you've requested. :)  Green Giant  ( talk )  01:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Deletions
Please use for proposed deletions. If you just use, the date will advance daily. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah. The way we do proposed deletion allows cleanup without fuss, if nobody cares about the resource. If someone cares, they can remove the tag. In this case, looking at Majorca, this was an IP user, this tiny stub contains no real work, the IP never came back, and nobody will miss it. It is possible it could qualify for speedy deletion, but if in doubt, prod. If this had been created by a registered user, we might move it to user space. We are highly inclusive, but mainspace should not be full of junk that nobody cares about. You might notice how dead WV:RFD is. It was not always that way. We have, in practice, high consensus, most of the time. People hate it when something they want to work on or study or teach is deleted. We are the only wiki that would not immediately delete a modern Jabberwocky. We might move it to Mr. Carroll's user space, though.


 * I can't recall any user getting seriously upset when a resource was moved to their user space. And if someone doesn't like a prod, they can remove it. The same with a speedy deletion tag. Normally, as well, we will undelete anything deleted, on request, informally, but if for some reason no custodian will do it, there is deletion request, for discussed deletion. It's really rare that this is necessary. Part of what I've done here is to train Wikipedians to not file WV:Requests for deletion when lesser measures are available (speedy and prod) that cause no disruption. Deletion discussions are often disruptive, it's where people disagree and argue about it.


 * I hope you are enjoying your glimpse of Wikiversity. We can do some special things here, that are impossible on the other wikis. The lack of encyclopedic mission, for us, makes it easy to be easy-going. We have seen users who would be fighting it out on Wikipedia, AN/I, the whole nine yards, who end up cooperating here. The "believer" and the "skeptic" can fully express their positions. Each would only get in trouble if they try to censor the other. I cannot recall an edit war in mainspace, they only arise over governance issues, on occasion, and very little lately. I.e., there has been revert warring over guidelines and policies. For the most part, those users have left, unless you want to count me as one of them! (I avoid revert warring, per se, but sometimes a revert is so preposterous that I've reverted back on occasion. My goal is always consensus, though.)


 * So, consider that page, Majorca. If someone wanted to write a paean to Majorca, they could do it here. Or a critique, for that matter. They can study Majorca, the place, the history, whatever. We don't want to be a collection of encyclopedia stubs, though, and we used to routinely delete such things. Now, we might think, this is a young user who wants to write something, and we want to be welcoming. So we give some time, hence a prod. Wikiversity is a place for "learning by doing," it is part of the mission. We are not merely a collection of finished products, and the creation and development of resources here is a method of study. It has certainly been that for me. As a result of my study with Cold fusion (here and writing elsewhere), I learned enough about this field to be published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Naming Conventions
Please note that Wikiversity naming conventions support both Title Case and Sentence case. It is not necessary to change Title Case to Sentence case here. Academics seem to prefer Title Case. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * thank you for the heads-up. I was trying to get the parent category sorted out to match the other similar ones. I'll move these ones back (unless Wikiversity doesn't have the move-over-redirect function).  Green Giant  ( talk )  13:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Both category changes and page moves can be handled by bot if that would be easier. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If that is possible, then yeah, although I'm happy using a script because I can check whether I've made mistakes as I'm going along (like the big one you've pointed out :) ).  Green Giant  ( talk )  16:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Don't change it back unless the change could be disruptive or confusing. All changes are, in a way, disruptive, they create traffic to be reviewed if anyone is looking. I don't agree with Dave's assessment about "most academics," or, at least, I've seen plenty of examples in academic journals of both kinds of case. What I read Dave as saying, centrally, is that it is not necessary to change it, and so it should normally be left alone. However, mixed usage does create a problem: When I'm looking for a topic, what case do I use? If there is no redirect, I may miss that a resource exists with different case.
 * However, yes, you can move a moved page back to the original name, as you found. There are restrictions. I think there can be no intervening edits, but I haven't checked it.
 * When there is a substantial subpage structure, it's better to ask a custodian to move it, because all can be moved at once. On the other hand, if that is done in error, it can create a huge mess. There is no undo. The developers are too busy with Visual Editor, Flow, and removing email access to locked users.... really important stuff, I'm sure.
 * The Good News is that you may have just created redirects to the Title case from sentence case. That, at least, is mildly useful.
 * On the other hand, you are requesting deletion of redirects without fixing incoming links. Always check what links here before deleting (or requesting deletion) a redirect. I do a lot of page moves, and it can leave behind quite a mess if not done carefully. Deadlinks, double redirects, etc. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I requested deletion for the two pages I couldn't move back (that function only works if there is no other edit on the redirected page). I was looking for something similar to Wikipedia's db-move but there isn't one as far as I can see. Maybe worth creating such a template?  Green Giant  ( talk )  21:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - those incoming links were there before the page was moved and are related to it ie the Howard Community College one and the ones from User:1sfoerster. I'm not sure how you want them to be fixed.  Green Giant  ( talk )  23:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It may not be a problem here if you want the page deleted so the original can be moved back. This should really be done by a custodian as one move. Otherwise, as a two-part process by two users, the second part will sometimes fall into the cracks. When I *do* move pages -- I often do -- I will fix the incoming links to point them to the new target, so there are no double redirects. And if there is no incoming and no reason to keep the redirect, then I request deletion of it, with an edit summary of "no incoming links." There can still be reasons to keep redirects other than local incoming. Once in a while I will google the URL and find if anyone is linking from off-wiki. Or if it is likely search target. I pointed to your discussion of CommonsNow on WV:Deletions. I hope I didn't misrepresent you. I just saw an example of the damage done, mentioned it on User talk:Marshallsumter. File uploaded to Wikipedia in 2011. Very likely public domain from apparent source. Prints of the image are available all over the internet. File was moved to Commons. Was just deleted there because no license info,, and the Wikipedia copy was deleted in 2012 because it had been moved to Commons. Nobody was notified other than the uploader to Commons. Mess. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User talk:199.167.231.232
thanks for your thoughtful comment there. It's always a question how to handle these "vandalism" edits. Most of them are children. I have thin evidence that this could be a 9-year-old boy. Not enough to move for deletion on that basis, and I judge that welcoming the user is more important. Children can learn, and they can learn rapidly. A problem here is that the user may never see the comments. But he might. I handled a case four years ago, here, where the user was 7. It worked, the user is now a WMF sysop. Yes, he must be 12 or 13. Welcoming him here stopped what was being handled as cross-wiki vandalism. Until I intervened and welcomed that very young user, he had learned that blocks were trivial to deal with. Just reboot the modem! Most Wikimedians don't have children, and have forgotten what it was like to be a bright child, if they were. I have seven children and six grandchildren, and I love kids, and, yes, they can be a handful, but well worth the trouble.

One in a while, these welcomes and efforts result in cooperation and learning. It's easy enough to do, it doesn't have to pay off every time! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch
I just intervened on Commons to suggest to a user having Common Problem 37 ("deletion request paranoia") that the user come here, and he did. He's blocked on Commons for a week, and probably is better off with a short block, he's so upset and confused. You can look at the commons situation if you want, but I don't think any admin action is needed there, it will all blow over. His comment here is at User talk:Abd. We'll see how he does. My guess is that many users who blow it on Commons are having similar reactions. He wrote, here: "To be honest I only ever uploaded my images because I genuinely thought other people might find them helpful."

He's not the first user I've assisted who had that thought, and were perplexed by what they encountered on Commons. Commons can be brutal. (And the same thing happens with admins, "I was only trying to help, and why are these people all against me?")

One of my visions for Wikiversity is as a way to defuse conflict elsewhere. I've seen it work. We will eventually develop guides for sysops (and for community as to the care and feeding of sysops), manuals for dispute resolution, etc. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion request of TV_One
Hi- I started to delete subpages of TV One as per your request, but temporarily paused when I saw the IP editor removed one of the deletion requests. Wikiversity is unique among the wiki-sisters in that we encourage student contributions. My rigorously mathematical mind cannot fathom how we are supposed to separate childish efforts to "learn by doing" from useless edits by those who are incapable of learning. Up to now, I have demanded a justification for the project, and silence is the typical response. Then I delete. I am not advocating this policy, simply stating that it is what I have done in the past. Do you have any suggestions? I will ping on this.

You should both know that even though I have strong opinions about many things, this is one of those issues where I honestly don't care what we do. I do want to help out with Wikiversity cleanup and am willing to delete pages once a consensus has been formed.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm mixed on this one. The content clearly doesn't belong.  But the user has been editing here off and on for a year or more, and is slowly learning how to edit with subpages and manage a project.  There is some learning taking place, and quality seems to be improving.  So, are we helping them learn, or simply wasting their time because the content will get deleted eventually anyway?  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't see any benefit in essentially reproducing chunks of work from other projects (license issues aside) unless there is going to be something unique added that cannot be done elsewhere. At least that is how I perceive WV; it is filling a niche that isn't covered by the other projects, albeit with some inevitable overlaps. However there is nothing in these list articles that imparts anything that a reader couldn't find on the corresponding Wikipedia article. It is like uploading a smaller version of a photo that is available in a much larger size on Commons, but without a unique perspective. To make any of these lists viable, it is going to be necessary to create the red-links, the templates and the categories that are already existing on Wikipedia. So, I honestly don't think there is anything useful being done here. For example, having removed the speedy template, the next few edits on The First Family are just more of the same. I support the idea that people slowly learn by doing but is it learning if you are doing the same thing over and over i.e. how many times does someone need to copy-and-paste to realise what the effect is?  Green Giant  ( talk )  08:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We need to continue with this discussion. But in the meantime I will blank all these pages and leave a note informing the editor(s) that they must contact me with justification for this page.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Curator
Thanks for your efforts to clean up Wikiversity. Do you have any interest in the Curator role? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for the comment. Having read the linked page, I think it is something I would be interested in. I'm a Commons sysop so I'm familiar with most of the tasks listed on the curator page apart from importing. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 18:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * See Candidates for Custodianship/Green Giant. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * that was quick. Thank you for the nomination. Should I sign the page somewhere or will this conversation be sufficient? Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll add a question you can address. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

✅ Congratulations! Let me know if you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * much obliged. I'll be sure to ask questions. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikiversity Law Reports
Hi Green Giant!

Your recent improvements to the Wikiversity Law Reports, headnotes on court decisions, makes the project more learner friendly! Would you like it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi and thank you. It's still a work in progress but yes please could it be announced? Much obliged. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hi Green Giant!

May I request a comment at --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

German and English Wikiversity - Commons Images
Hi Green Giant, Wanted to transfer and translate the SDG categorisation for learning resource from the english Wikiversity to the German Wikiversity. I saw that you are currently working on SDGs and CourseCat (great!! thank you for that). Seems that the image links that work in the english Wikiversity for the SDGs do not work in the german Wikiversity. It does not make sense to me to upload the icons again in different language. I think that violates basic principles of efficient image use among different Wiki products. In this case it is the same product but a different language. In general there was no problem with multiple use of media across Wiki products like Wikiversity, Wikipedia??? What is the problem with the SDG logos?

--Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There is some debate at the moment at OTRS about whether UNDP holds copyright over these logos. If you look at http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/copyright_and_termsofuse.html they do indeed claim copyright for their materials. However, I think we can host most of them at Commons using the Public Domain Text Logo Template because that is essentially what they are. The only slight problem might be File:Sustainable Development Goal 13.png where the part that is inside the eye could be complex. However, this applies to the logos in English only because arguably they come under US Law, which has a fairly low threshold of originality. By contrast, Germany has a high threshold, which means for example that File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg is not protected by copyright. These logos are simpler than that one, so if the logos were in German, we could host them at Commons too. I can try moving them to Commons directly, and then you can add them to German WV. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying the legal issues. Thank you for a solution. Nevertheless support SDG activities as learning resources in Wikiversity is inline with the vision United Nations has in mind. Nevertheless legal regulation must be correct. Thank you for you support. Great if we can use the logos in the German Wikiversity without violating legal constraints and referencing to United Nations regulations attached to the images.
 * --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All done I think. Please look through them and let me know if I’ve missed anything. You should now be able to use the same files at DE-WV. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your support --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Airforceacad03.jpg
This file has since been uploaded to Commons using the template, which doesn't exist here. Suggestions? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. I suggest using PD-self because it is exactly the same wording as the Commons license (which is an unnecessary duplicate of other PD tags). The code  should be sufficient attribution. I hope that helps. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Ara Bode.jpg
Hi Green Giant!

On 28 October 2014, I uploaded File:Ara Bode.jpg under fair use from Wikipedia w:File:Ara_Bode.jpg, which is likely PD. But, Commons has c:File:Ara bode.jpg which is not the same. Suggestions? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. The images (your upload and the Commons one) are definitely PD because the author,, died in 1826. On Commons that qualifies for a PD-old-100-1923 tag, which is about as public domain as you can get. I will look at possibly overwriting the Commons file as soon as I can, but feel free to change your upload to PD-old. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 19:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thrust-to-weight ratio
Hi, I wanted to let you know I created this page. All I ask is, where does this fit? Engineering or physics or somewhere else\? Artix Kreiger (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Both Engineering and Physics I’d say. I’ve added the appropriate tags so the page is automatically in those categories. I don’t think you need the red-linked Categories. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Dye Stations in Greenland.jpg
Hi Green Giant!

The above file is now PD-USAF. I tried to upload the correct templates here so this cropping could have the same license as the original, but without success. Suggestions? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi. What you started was an auto translate template. We don’t need them here because it is expected that users will understand English. They only work by having several templates: a main one, a layout one, a language listing one, and individual ones for each language. It’s a complex system that takes a while to understand. Anyway I’ve replaced it with an ombox and a doc subpage. I suggest renaming it PD-US-Mil so it can be used for any such military images. I hope that helps. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 02:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Participation in WikiUniversity - United States Law
Hi Green Giant! I'm a new member of the Wiki community, and I'd like to get involved with the US Law project. I have an undergraduate degree in American Government as well as a JD; I have also published a number of law review articles. Let me know how I can get involved! Thanks.
 * Hello. You are more than welcome to work on any of the pages under United States Law. Feel free to edit an existing page or one of the redlinked ones. The ultimate aim is to develop resources that anyone can use, mainly at a university level but it is a fairly fluid requirement. There are also a number of textbooks at b:Subject:Law on Wikibooks, which are a complement to the resources here. The difference is pretty much the same as between a recommended textbook for a course and the material such as lecture notes you receive when studying a course. Don’t hesitate to ask for help if you need it. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 22:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response! I've begun working on the constitutional law course. I'm going to structure it along lines similar to those at most law schools--Constitutional Law I (federalism and constitutional structure); Constitutional Law II (individual rights); and Criminal Procedure (constitutional rights of criminal defendants). You can check out my thoughts on the talk page there. Always happy to have feedback and help! --Minivanburen (discuss • contribs) 21:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent! That sounds like a fine idea. I’m afraid I’m not experienced in US Law, so I will defer to superior knowledge. By the way, you don’t need to use the re template on my user page because the system automatically alerts me that a message has been left here. Cheers. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 03:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks! I'm new to using Wiki, so I've mostly been getting around by just emulating everyone else and copying code! Haha. Are you aware of anyone else working on the US law project? It'll be slow going for a good while if I'm doing it on my own. :) --Minivanburen (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I'm not aware of anyone else working there. It is worth becoming familiar with the English Wikipedia WikiProject Law, which has some people who are familiar with Law-Related articles. One point to bear in mind is to be careful about copying material between different wikis - the licensing means we have to attribute the previous versions of pages. An easy way around this is to import revisions, which an admin can do at WV:Import. Keep going! Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 17:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked Message For You
See https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/34277 -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ answered at my Wikisource talk page. Cheers. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Happy new year
happy new year green giant{[talkback|alao murewa}}

Draft:Demonstration of the No Relativity of Time
Hi Green Giant!

Regarding the deletion of Draft:Demonstration of the No Relativity of Time and its talk page, there is a discussion: Talk:WikiJournal of Science regarding keeping submissions to the WikiJournal of Science in perpetuity, in Draft ns. Also, Irrefutable Truths of Life has been deleted and should be kept. While these submissions are hardly worthy of submission for outside peer review, we decided to keep them much as PLOS Topic Pages are also retained on their website in perpetuity.

Can you restore these and their talk pages and place them in Draft: ns? We may want to add a prefix at some point in time but our EiC can probably do that.

Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see your point but this needs to be a matter of policy rather than referring to a talkpage discussion for future references. I would disagree with the idea of keeping drafts indefinitely. There needs to be an incentive to move the draft towards publication stage. From what I can see, the page was not materially updated for since December 2017. I'm not sure PLOS is the only example we should look to. On English Wikipedia, drafts are deleted if they are not worked on for six months. I think that’s an example of something ENWP does right. Also, as a curator, I cannot restore deleted pages. Technically, as a steward, of course I can restore it but in this instance I have to wear the curator hat. --Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 03:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback! These were submittals to the WikiJournal of Science. They don't need to be in Draft: ns. Draft: ns was suggested and generally agreed to. They could remain as WikiJournal preprints, for example. But we have agreed that the WikiJournals should keep their submittals even when rejected whether sent out for peer review or not. This may not require a policy decision by Wikiversity as it is a WikiJournals' decision. I'll to get his opinion. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 06:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll raise it on talk:WikiJournal User Group and as an agenda item at the next meeting. Preprint servers like Arxiv and OSF generally only allow page deletion under specific circumstances that are actually quite similar to wikimedia projects. Although we've previously defaulted to Wikiversity policies (particularly WV:CSD #5) my preference would be to model on something similar to established preprint servers. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 06:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry if I wasn’t clear on this. What I meant is that it should be written up as a WJ policy and added to the list at WV:POLICY. As long as WJ remains within WV, such a policy would be also a WV policy. It should also be noted at WV:D as a reason to keep a page. We should not be consulting talk page discussions when deciding whether to delete a page. --Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 08:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikiversity logo at the top left on el.wikiversity.org Main Page
Hi Green Giant!

User:Diomidis Spinellis has noted on url=https://el.wikiversity.org/wiki/Βικιεπιστήμιο:Συμβούλιο that the Wikiversity logo in the upper left corner has a misspelling of Wikiversity but has the newer world dome. The correct spelling but with the older dome is at c:File:Wikiversity-logo-el.svg. Is there a commons version with both the correct spelling and the new dome available on commons?

Also, the subpage or template that the el.wikiversity.org Main Page Wikiversity logo occurs on that needs to be changed is not readily findable on el.wikiversity.org Main Page subpages or templates. Can you locate it?

It appears to be the case that the Counsel on el.wikiversity.org may have to agree to this change or may no longer know how to make this change. Can you help? See url=https://el.wikiversity.org/wiki/Βικιεπιστήμιο:Συμβούλιο. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: Old dome
Thank you for pointing out the old globe problem. The logo with both the correct logo and name is also available at c:File:Wikiversity_logo_2017_el.svg. I updated the Phabricator task to point to it. Diomidis Spinellis (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

what is Wikiversity?
I want to contribute here but I don't know what it is. --47.16.99.72 (discuss) 15:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. In a nutshell it is an incomplete set of learning resource partly focussed on college/university level materials. There is a more comprehensive answer at Wikiversity:Welcome. It is not an online college/university - there are no degrees or qualifications offered but some of the material is of the same standard. It is also not Wikipedia. You are welcome to contribute a n any way you can but I would recommend becoming familiar with it by starting at Help:Guides and going through some of the tours. -Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Username
This is just to let anyone who needs to know, I’m changing my username. --Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 13:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)