The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "Enterprise client-server backup" section at the end of the article be separated from the "Backup" article into a stand-alone article? If so, how would I protect that separate" article from an instant "simplifying" re-merger into "Backup"? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*No split necessary for any section per WP:CONSPLIT and could be considered a redundant WP:CFORK. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I find it unnecessary to take away such a section from backup. The article is pretty well-built with it. I have no doubt that it COULD make a stand-alone article but IMHO I see no significant reason to make this split especially if it were to be merged again. I would revise my !vote if Pi314m were to make a statement denying that he would re-merge the article in the future without reaching consensus in this talk page. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Split Since User:Pi314m is clearly not trying to split in bad faith and believes that a working 'History' of the topic is achievable I do think we should go through with a split. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe? - I don't see a WP:CONSPLIT rationale, but if Enterprise client-server backup meets WP:GNG it could reasonably be spun out into a seperate article. NickCT (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Split; reluctantly, see Discussion for my reason. In the 06:51, 22 May 2019 version—before the specific other editor started vandalizing it performing a WP-fraught synonym for substantial deletion of useful text—there were 24 second-party references (as opposed to cites of the refs) out of 54 for that section (the other 30 refs were first-party from backup application developers). Therefore it could stand alone, although there would need to be many links from it to the "Backup" article and vice-versa. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Split - hands off, while the author of the (new) Enterprise article obtains the courtesy and full opportunity that comes with "In use"/Under construction" (honoring it, whether or not it's physically there). Shortly thereafter, With other editors contributing (including myself somewhere down the road, particularly in a HISTORY section) there would be no "urge to merge." As for the present Backup article, I'd also be hands-off for a while, to facilitate his work. Is this the statement you're seeking? Pi314m (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly between 2007 and 2011, the first 7 screen-pages of the "Backup" article evolved as a comprehensive summary of what every computer-using person should know about backing up his/her data. In November 2017 I moved the description of certain backup features from another article to a new 2-screen-page "Enterprise client-server backup" section at the end of the article. The lead of that section clearly says it is about "a class of software applications that back up data from a variety of client computers centrally to one or more server computers, with the particular needs of enterprises in mind." The section goes on to describe special features typically incorporated in that class of applications, with an explanation of the enterprise need for each feature. Should that end section be separated from the "Backup" article into a stand-alone article?

There is evidence that having a single article with sections aimed at audiences with different levels of IT knowledge is confusing for some readers. On 26 May 2019 another editor deleted these two paragraphs from the "Performance" sub-section of the "Enterprise client-server backup" section. He then inserted greatly simplified descriptions of the same features into the "Backup types" sub-section and "Manipulation of data and dataset optimization" section of personal backup sections of the article, evidently to fit those features into his own knowledge of the backup process. Unfortunately his knowledge, because of his evident unfamiliarity with enterprise IT much beyond the early 1990s, does not encompass the application features described in "Enterprise client-server backup"—all of which were developed sometime after 2005 as a result of advances in hardware and operating systems. The fact that his personal backup level of knowledge will be shared by many Wikipedia readers argues for splitting the "Enterprise client-server backup" section off into a separate article, with sufficient two-way linking to guide interested readers to the enterprise features while explaining those features as sophisticated extensions of their simpler roots.

Unfortunately that particular other editor has a distinct fondness for "cut-and-paste moves" that he calls "mergers", which he does—frequently starting in the month of January—without community consensus. He did one in January 2017, and was rebuked for it by Diannaa. He did another one in January 2018, and was warned about it by Matthiaspaul—who said "If you continue these kinds of edits, they will have to be regarded as vandalism which may led to a block." On the Talk page for that second article, Matthiaspaul said "No, this is not how it works! It is good that you are trying to be constructive, but your edits are not. You are already edit-warring over it and if you continue to try to force your undiscussed changes into the articles, this may led [sic] to a block. [new paragraph] Such changes require prior discussion and won't be carried out unless the outcome of such a discussion (after a reasonable amount of time for other editors to see, think about it and react - typically months) would be consensus for a merge." The other editor quoted part of that on his personal Talk page, saying "I too can and hopefully will learn from what you said on the article talk page". However starting in January 2019 he did another series of 9 "cut-and-paste moves" without community consensus into the "Outsourcing" article, which nobody caught him doing; I have described them starting in the 9th paragraph of the "3O" section of this article's Talk page. Starting in late May 2019 that other editor editor without community consensus did "cut-and-paste moves" of two other articles into the "Backup" article, after the second of which he deleted the entire contents of the merged-in article except for the two-sentence lead—because the body of that second article (which I've copied here) discussed an application not directly related to backup.

NikkeKatski [Elite] suggested above "If we gain consensus for the obviously superior your version of the article then any attempts to revert it can probably be considered edit warring (if it wasn't considered that already) and would be more easily punishable." The problem with that approach is that, based on his history I've noted in the preceding paragraph, this particular other editor will do a "cut-and-paste move" of a separate "Enterprise client-server backup" article back into the "Backup" article almost instantly. So there would be no time to gain any community consensus—edit war (which I'd rather avoid) or no edit war. In any case this particular other editor editor doesn't pay any attention to any other editor; he refused to respond to either me or Seraphimblade in the Third Opinion section of this Talk page. So how would I protect a separate "Enterprise client-server backup" article from an instant "simplifying" re-merger? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DovidBenAvraham I don't see any reason to remove that section per WP:CONSPLIT and one could argue that it would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Also potentially you could purposely start an RfC asking "should we split" (RfC doesnt always have to be worded in your favor, but your !vote would be in your favor) and if we get enough involved wikipedians to participate in the RfC any attempt to go against consensus directly could justify punishment especially considering past behavior. Theres always the chance that wikipedians may agree with the split but hey if that happens then just let it be for the time being. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, Elitematterman (talk · contribs), this section of the article Talk page in fact starts such an RfC—my third attempt to produce one that's reasonably neutral and doesn't mention the "handle" of the particular other editor. As I said two paragraphs above this, "let it be for the time being" would mean that other editor would instantly "merge" a separate "Enterprise client-server backup" article back into the "Backup" article. And, as I didn't repeat there but said in the fourth through sixth paragraphs of this section of the Talk page, once he "merged" the separate article back in he would instantly delete any text that didn't agree with his own level of IT knowledge. So, unless some editor contributes to this RfC a brilliant suggestion on how to prevent the particular other editor from "doing his thing", I'm going to have to go to the Administrators' Noticeboard tomorrow with a request that the particular other editor be banned—either totally or from editing particular articles. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a good case to take to the noticeboard and it would probably fix the problem alone even if they decide not to ban him as in my experience they usually end up with something like "no, but if he persists..." And as for RfCs your last three seemed more like lengthy discussions rather than the traditional RfCs i've encountered where the format is something more like..

Request for Comments on Deleting fortnite article

(RfC template)

Fortnite is just a bad game and isnt WP:NOTABLE anymore -PUBGFAN123 (The proposed change)

(!votes below)

• no its still a worldwide phenomenon -Jonesy

• yes per WP:BADGAME -EpicGames

• Close RfC this request is dumb. -NikkeKatski

Discussion

where actual discussions happen and we more thoroughly explain our !votes. And an RfC AFAIK doesn't have to go this way but this is usually how people reach consensus on a matter. the proposed change also is usually neutral (completely) and merely states the proposed change where as your case can be entirely confined in the designated discussion section. -Nikke

dude why are you talking to yourself, also fortnite is bad per WP:GRAPHICS. -TotallyDovidLol

ok im done with this reenactment. I'm probably spending too much time doing this when its most likely unnecessary. But taking it to the noticeboards is a better idea like you stated because it can prevent all future/similar actions too. I think you should go forward with that first. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now copied the edited-out portions of the "Continuous data processing" article into an earlier section of this Talk page. The editing-out is what happened immediately after the first of the particular other editor's "cut-and-paste moves" of two other articles into the "Backup" article; I only alluded to that move in the last sentence of the third paragraph of this "Discussion" sub-section. If you compare what was edited-out to this sub-section of the article, you'll realize that the particular other editor's level of IT knowledge has left him unable to deal with the idea that all "CDP" personal backup applications are in fact "near-CDP". A "near-CDP" backup application in fact does un-scripted incremental backups once every 10 minutes to once an hour, which is sufficient for a personal user but not for an enterprise administrator (think about the consequences if the backup administrators at Target had only been able to restore cash-register transactions to 10 minutes before their nationwide system failure a couple of days ago). The SNIA's "every write" definition quoted here effectively means that a "true-CDP" backup application must be tied into a virtual machine, an approach currently available in several applications which only became available at great expense 10 years after the particular other editor's presumed departure from enterprise IT. FYI, I've done the copying merely as additional evidence for the Administrative Noticeboard; I thought you other editors might be interested in reading it. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It helps both from a WP:AN perspective and an article upkeep perspective ;p --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Echoing some of User:Elitematterman's thoughts, I'm not seeing the WP:CONSPLIT rationale for splitting. Can the nominator in two sentences or less, explain why he thinks the article should be split? That explanation shouldn't be "b/c I don't like the editor who merged the topics". NickCT (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pi314m: Could you participate in the RfC if you intend to split any part of this article? If not please reveal whether or not you do intend to split content. Thanks~ (Also re-ping of @NickCT: .. incase he's still interested.) --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There really is enough material "out there" on Enterprise (backup) to justify a standalone article, especially if a history section is given its due. Pi314m (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi314m: - Bit confused. DovidBenAvraham said you were merging these articles. Your comment suggests they should be separate. You feel as though these topics should be separate articles? NickCT (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: I can understand why you were confused as I was under the same assumption for a time during his first two attempts at RfC. What Dovid is trying to claim is that Pi314m has a tendency to split sections from articles without consensus and then re-merge them while simplifying the section. His problem (which i would want to avoid too) is that he does not wish for said section to be simplified as it tarnishes the article. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elitematterman: - Thanks for that explanation. These two seem like a few too many chips went into the cookie.

Pi314m - If we split this section out, can you state simply that you do not plan to merge it later? NickCT (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to revise my !vote to be more neutral if he were to agree to not merge it later without consensus in this talk page. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reluctantly think the article must be split, so that via the Administrator Noticeboard I can get the particular other editor (I'm not going to mention his "handle", but it begins with the letter 'P' and he's commented above) banned from editing the split "Enterprise client-server backup" article. Given what the particular other editor did to the "Outsourcing" article after promising not to do such things—all described in the third paragraph of this "Discussion" section—I consider his promise to temporarily act as if such a ban were in effect on a par with the promises of Old Golden Boy. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elitematterman: You've misunderstood what I have been saying about the habits of the particular other editor. He doesn't split related articles; instead he finds other articles which he considers related to one article, and merges-in the other articles—discarding without community consensus any text that he considers unrelated to or in conflict with the article he's merged them into. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That explains a couple things i've seen, but I still would only allow this if the standalone article wouldn't get merged into anything else (what else would it be merged into anyways other than backup lol). Also for future reference we should usually abide to results in WP:AN down to the letter. If they asked you to stop referring to the "handle" (big If) we usually don't try to hint at it. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the particular other editor is promising in the "Survey" sub-section is "Agree. Split - hands off, while the author of the (new) Enterprise article obtains the courtesy and full opportunity that comes with 'In use'/'Under construction' .... Shortly thereafter, With other editors contributing (including myself somewhere down the road, particularly in a HISTORY section) there would be no 'urge to merge.'". That's a promise worthy of Old Golden Boy, because it'll take me at most one day to establish the links to the "Backup" article—at which point the "under construction" conceptual sign would have to come off because the section as of 12:02, 20 May 2019 would be fine as a separate article! My counter-proposal is that the particular other editor shall be banned from editing the split-off article unless and until he finds an RS for a "History" section. He's unlikely to find that RS because, as I explained in the second paragraph of my 04:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC) comment on his personal Talk page, "There followed an epic-but-friendly three month battle with editor JohnInDC, during which I found terminology for the equivalent features in two competing enterprise client-server backup applications—and was therefore able to make the new section reasonably application-independent by adding references to those equivalent features." Of the 5 applications currently referenced in the "Enterprise client-server backup", 4 have WP articles with a "History" section—but each of those sections is couched in the terminology of its subject application. BTW nobody identifiable as an administrator asked me not to use the particular other editor's "handle"; I just thought it not using it would seem more NPOV. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DovidBenAvraham: - Can we quit the talk of banning all together? It's challenging WP:CIVILITY. It looks like the other editor mostly agrees with your position at this point. Just do the split that you want to do. If there's another errant merger attempt, call NikkeKatski [Elite] and I back here, and we'll take care of it. Simple. No need to bicker. NickCT (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing NickCT but also Right now Pi314m is our friend. We should be accepting his help as much as we can and if any issue should come up we can deal with it when we cross that bridge. For now we should work on contributing to an encyclopedia. These principles such as WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and WP:NPOV are the foundation of wikipedia. Yes we will have to deal with a couple bad eggs but there's a reason many admins are so reluctant to take harsh action. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT and Elitematterman: I think you editors (are you administrators?) should do a close re-read of the fourth paragraph here. The particular other editor promised on his personal Talk page in January 2018 "... at the end of this discussion (typically after several months), there will be consensus for a merge, we can carry it out. Otherwise, the articles stay separate", and then did 9 such un-discussed merge-ins to another article exactly a year later—followed in May 2019 by the two he did into the "Backup" article. I find WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH rather difficult to follow in his case. Besides, if you look at his 21:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC) comment in the Survey sub-section, he says "With other editors contributing (including myself somewhere down the road, particularly in a HISTORY section) there would be no 'urge to merge.' As for the present Backup article, I'd also be hands-off for a while, to facilitate his work." That amounts to the particular other editor's saying "If you allow me to mess up both the split-off article and the "Backup" article, then maybe I won't feel the urge to re-merge them again." Good faith or not, I simply don't feel he has complete control of his editing impulses; that's why I prefer to go to the Administrators' Noticeboard for at least a selective ban rather than humor him until January 2020 has passed—and IMHO so should you. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this were to happen again we are all on top of this already. You, me, and NickCT are all here and I'm pretty sure we have it under control. Any attempt at a re-merger can and Will be opposed by one or all of us. Such action after all this would also hasten decision making when brought up to WP:AN. It may go un-discussed but it won't go unnoticed. Also this split can and will be carried out however it does not need to stay split. If the splitoff article is unsatisfactory we can discuss restoring backup to its former glory (without simplification). If it really is bad faith then I can wait. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable with an additional condition that the particular other editor will have to agree to, which is that I'll recreate the "Continuous data protection" and "Information Repository" articles exactly as they were before he deleted them—and he'll have to agree not to edit them (unless he can add RS'ed "History" sections, which is unlikely). Let me add that I have no connection with SoleraTec, which is still marketing a "federated information repository" application—as is IBM from what I can tell. I'll bet that the particular other editor won't agree to that condition, because IMHO one of his guiding principles is "if I can't understand this article, then no other readers should be allowed to see it on Wikipedia" (see for example his ""This article is not meant [my emphasis] to be at the PhD level ...." comment about the "Outsourcing" article I've recounted here). DovidBenAvraham (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi314m: Perhaps you should start working on a draft and potentially recruit people to help you. Mainly focusing on the history of the enterprise section. And IMO Dovid's requests seem 'reasonable' if you ignore the context. You could probably pull it off. Just avoid being too primary source heavy on everything you work on. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered a further complication with implementing this additional condition. On 22 May, when the specific other editor started his merge-ins to the "Backup" article, he also did something rather sneaky to the "Data repository" article. Although the lead sentence of that article says "A data library, data archive, or data repository is a collection of numeric and/or geospatial data sets for secondary use in research", the editor inserted an "Information repository" sub-section. That sub-section simply lists three uses of the term "information repository" for "sets" of data that is neither numeric or geospatial in New York Times articles, two referencing IBM and Microsoft applications in 1989 and 2003 and one referencing the Mount Vernon NY Public Library in 1996. I can move these back to the re-established "Information Repository" article, but my inclination is simply to delete at least the Mount Vernon one from where it is now as now as sheer obfuscatory cruft. FYI the "Backup" article originally used the term "data repository", but—as noted here on this Talk page on 16:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)—I had to change that term to "information repository" because in 2017 Jacob Voss made the former term a synonym for "data library". DovidBenAvraham (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)"[reply]

I recreated the "Continuous data protection" and "Information Repository" articles exactly as they were before the particular other editor deleted them. I was able to recover the revision history for "Information Repository", because User:Christian75 had edited-in {{R with history}} and {{R to section}} after the original re-direct. However I was unable to recover the revision history for "Continuous data protection", even though I reverted my recreation after the fact and put in the templates. I moved the specific other editor's sneaky additional section and sub-section in the "Data repository" article back to the re-established "Information Repository" article, including the one referencing the Mount Vernon NY Public Library. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created the "Enterprise client-server backup" article from the section of the "Backup" article as of 20 May, and updated it with two later enhancements. Still to come: (1) Update any links from "Enterprise client-server backup" to "Backup". (2) Update any links from "Backup" to "Enterprise client-server backup". (3) Create new mentions with links from "Enterprise client-server backup" to "Backup". (4) Create new mentions with links from "Backup" to "Enterprise client-server backup". DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the "Continuous data protection" sub-section of the "Backup" article using the particular other editor's references, but showing them distinguishing between true CDP and near-CDP per the second through fifth paragraphs here. I left out the ref by Bobby Crouch, which is a pure marketing blurb from a company that pleaded guilty to bribery. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the "Automated data grooming" paragraph of the "Backup" article, restricting the capability to that found in personal backup applications. The particular other editor's references were all to EMC Retrospect Windows 7.5, which was the first version of that application with enterprise client-server features. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the difference between creating a synthetic full backup for a single archive file and creating a second archive file from a first. This eliminated the need for the separate "Synthetic full backup" sub-sub-section within the "Incremental" sub-section of the "Backup" article that the particular other editor had moved from the "Enterprise client-server backup" section. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the "Enterprise client-server backup" section, since it is now a separate article. As they say at Hogwarts, "Mischief managed". DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the "Information repository models" sub-section lead—with clarified wording—and sub-sub-section structure to what they were as of 12:02, 20 May 2019, re-inserted the "Unstructured" method in "Backup methods", and replaced the Biersdorfer NYTimes ref in "Remote backup service" with a re-cite of the Forbes ref. IMHO what the particular other editor had done was mostly out of his zeal to merge-in the "Information repository" article—which I have now re-established per my 02:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC) comment, for whatever peculiar reasons. We may not like "Unstructured" as a repository organization method, but it is in fact what a lot of users of "personal" backup applications start out doing. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article split has already produced one unfortunate consequence, and IMHO may in future produce another. The first unfortunate consequence is that the combined average weekday pageviews of the split articles (eyeballed by me as 570 +15 = 585) have decreased from the average weekday pageviews of the un-split article exactly a year ago (eyeballed by me as 670) by about 13%. If the particular other editor were editing a periodical for a publishing company, and made changes to the periodical's content that decreased the average readership by 13%, I think he would shortly be out of a job. The second unfortunate consequence may result from my having kept the full "Continuous data protection" sub-subsection that he introduced, only rewording it and quoting the particular other editor's own references. In doing that I have taken pains to preserve the distinction between "true CDP" and "near-CDP" that is in the references when they are read in full. IMHO we shouldn't describe "true CDP" in the "Backup" article, only mention it with a link to a description in the "Enterprise client-server backup" article. That is because, as part of the split, I added a sentence to the first paragraph of the lead "This article focuses on features found even in personal backup applications, as opposed to features found only in enterprise client-server backup applications." As my improved version of the sub-subsection states—conclusively referenced, "true CDP backup must in practice be run in conjunction with a virtual machine—which may rule it out for ordinary personal backup applications." An unfortunate consequence would result if the particular other editor then took offense at my having deleted part of his treasured sub-subsection from the "Backup" article, and pulled the kind of shenanigans he did when he did a "same-article-merge-in" of two paragraphs in the "Performance" subsection of the "Backup" article into earlier sections—with very-inaccurate simplifications—in late May 2019. Are you trusting enough to think his "With other editors contributing (including myself somewhere down the road, particularly in a HISTORY section) there would be no 'urge to merge'" end-of-the-preceding-Survey-section pledge would deter the particular other editor from doing that? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Started dealing with the second unfortunate consequence by adding several "Backing up interactive applications via true Continuous Data Protection" paragraphs to the new "Enterprise client-server backup" article. These paragraphs are excerpted from the particular other editor's "Backup" sub-subsection—as improved by me, but omit any substantial mention of "near-CDP" backup. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued dealing with the second unfortunate consequence by enhancing "Continuous Data Protection" article with text and references previously added by me to Backup#CDP sub-subsection. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finished dealing with the second unfortunate consequence by changing sub-subsection name from "CDP" to "Near-CDP", moving it under "Incremental" because that's what it's a variety of, and getting rid of all discussion of true CDP except explanation of why this is near-CDP. The particular other editor wants easier-to-understand, so that's what this is. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those who haven't (including Pi314m) should cast !votes under survey section if they have come to a conclusion as to what their opinion on the matter is. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.