Jump to content

User talk:DrtheHistorian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Apaugasma,
Hope all is well.
Thank you for the message I appreciate the welcoming and tips on wikipedia mate.
That signature shortcut is cool I gave it a try.
I have seen you around in edits, I too hope to see you around and for you to stay. DrtheHistorian (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New message to DrtheHistorian

[edit]

Read MOS:ETHNICITY, as with every other person who's added that to that article that we've had to revert over the years. Remsense ‥ 论 00:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read that, but then we should remove the part which says "Arabic-language" in the opening paragraph which is in the sentence "vastly influential Arabic-language works". That part is against the wikipedia Manual that you have mentioned, but it seems to not bother you?
it should simply read as: "was a polymath who produced a vast amount of works in mathematics, astronomy, and geography." DrtheHistorian (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Abo Yemen. I noticed that you recently removed content from Persian Gulf without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abo Yemen, Hoping all is well with you.
I explained the reasoning now. Does not count as removed content mate. I removed false information. I have spent days reading the Rfc page of the Persian gulf and found no proof of why it should include its newly false generated name to be used, however I did not remove the "semi-protected" false content. The naming on this body of water is not even be up for a debate mate, never understood all these new generated debates out there.
If I see I should be reasoning behind a topic I have no problems to post on the persons talk page. DrTheHistorian【Talk】 16:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't at all grasp why "Arabian Gulf" should be listed, then you do not grasp what we are doing to build an encyclopedia. Kindly refrain from damaging it further if this is the case. Remsense ‥ 论 16:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just following WP:COMMON NAME in English. The argument is that it is called that name in Arabic countries, which is not English. DrTheHistorian【Talk】 16:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Persian Gulf. Remsense ‥ 论 16:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its called Disruptive editing or stubbornness, it is not considered as "vandalism". The first paragraph perfectly explains this. DrTheHistorian【Talk】 16:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I thought you were operating in good faith, maybe. After reading the above, I can't come to that conclusion. Remsense ‥ 论 16:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is in good faith, as the name has been on that body of water in thousands of years. We cant change history here. It is an encyclopedia where people come gain information. DrTheHistorian【Talk】 17:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa—I simply did not notice or understand the timeline of what the page looked like when. I'll strike as appropriate. Remsense ‥ 论 17:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is all good mate. DrTheHistorian【Talk】 17:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of a Wrongful Block

[edit]
Defence

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:EnlightenmentNow1792 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EnlightenmentNow1792. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  TheSandDoctor Talk 17:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

what. This is a mistake. It is wrong to block me! I have done nothing wrong. :: ::I do not have any other user, this is a wrong claim. I have never had another account on WP, I have no idea who the other user is. ::I simply read the RfC (Archive 8, Persian gulf talk page) and its thread. Found the arguments that two other users made valid therefore I tagged both users in my talk so maybe I can get them to join in and also to show that I did read and I am referencing them, one turned out to be blocked. Claims by naive user, I must be the blocked user. Thats a bizarre and a cheap claim. :: ::I stated I have been on WP since late 2000s, That is correct, as a reader and as a surfer like millions of others, thats how you get interested to make an account. Never claimed I did edits, as I even mentioned on the same thread one line down. Me: "You can be on WP without being an editor or having an account"! The other user (Same user accusing me) stated, they too have been on the website before making an account "I've also used the internet and been on wp without being an editor or having an account." thats absolutely counteracting their own claims. :: ::The most naive and absurd comparison: "Using UN article” which is open to public, multiple people can use the same source, that is how Citing works, specially when parties are claiming the same outcome, on a geographical naming situation were UN has lots to say... ::Looking at above and the comparison tools, I am genuinely confused as how I am being connected to another user based on those naive and absurd comparisons :: ::The user that requested my block has done it in bad faith. As I see it, since they were involved in Persian Gulf talk page and could never make a proper argument and only replied in an unprofessional manner, this was their way of "Winning" by wrongfully accusing me with such a bizarre claim. I believe this is a personal attack towards my username and I request to be reviewed for an unblock. DrTheHistorian✎ 18:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

DrTheHistorian✎ 18:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Hi, please pay attention to this and this. After reading the SPI and checking the editing history of DrtheHistorian, I must say that I agree with Apaugasma, But maybe I'm missing something.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno and The Wordsmith: thoughts? TheSandDoctor Talk 00:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing further to add. Izno (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness, I'll add this which completes one of the threads from which Wikaviani took the above diffs. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your cmt, But I would like to point out that you were the one who pointed me towards writing within WP policies 03/10. Between that comment and my oppose comment theres a 7 day difference 03/17 (cant tag og cmt) which I took the time to study the policies and implement them on my talk. DrTheHistorian✎ 22:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DrtheHistorian, can you explain what you mean by I believe this is a personal attack towards my username? -- asilvering (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, Sure. That line is how I see the action of the user who reported me in bad faith, based on the reasoning in the same paragraph. DrTheHistorian✎ 23:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Hello,
Interaction timeline, shows only one article similarity. Anyone on one article would have this similarity.
Two experienced users who I have interacted with have said that they are not convinced that I am the same user:
User: Apaugasma: Here & Here, Their communication styles are entirely different
User: ---Wikaviani: Here, I must say that I agree with Apaugasma
My Contributions have all be in good faith and I never engaged in edit warring or tried to hurt any article. I have wrote many in-life articles and know how to respect them.
Examples of my Medical Article edits:
Crigler–Najjar syndrome: 1
Primary aldosteronism: 1 2
Kernicterus: 1 2
Other user's Contributions has nothing in the Medical field.
My first edits were Newcomer tasks (tag: Newcomer task) than proceeded to free editting which were all voilating some policy beacuse clearly I did not know them. I went back to Newcomer tasks and studied policies that other users pointed out, such as my welcome message.
No one is new to wikipedia website anymore, WP:BRANDNEW. I mentioned that I have never made edits or had any accounts, after saying I was not new to WP. I have been using this website for many years and finally decided to contribute therefore I made my first account, DrtheHistorian.
Also, based on WP:NOTSOCK, Only when editing is extremely disruptive may it be necessary to open a sockpuppet investigation, I should not have been reported, however report was made based on a single writing on one talk page a violation of that policy.
See Report Comparisons, tagging, used UN and wrote long with sources. none pointing towards disruptive!
1- UN was used 10 times on Persian gulf RfC + Thread by multiple users! I read that and wrote my talk.
2- I tagged another user on the same talk, interestingly am not being compared to them b/c they are not blocked...
3- The only long writing I made (didnt know policy). See Thread
4- Writing style was not compared!
5- Writing with sources is how you back your claims?! Amusing "evidence".
I hope this request is now sufficient enough.
Thank you for your time.
DrTheHistorian✎ 22:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Between JBW's thorough investigation and recent "unlikely" result at SPI, we have no reason to maintain this block. -- asilvering (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DrTheHistorian✎ 22:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor (blocking admin), @Izno & The Wordsmith (other admins at the SPI), @Bbb23 (blocking admin of EnlightenmentNow1792), @Daniel Case (reviewed EnlightenmentNow1792's block):
I will repeat here once more that DrTheHistorian's entire editing style (language use, interaction with others, type of arguments, etc.) is so utterly different from EnlightenmentNow1792 that it's hardly credible that they should be the same person. Just read EnlightenmentNow1792's unblock requests for a quick comparison.
What evidence is this block based on? If it's only the evidence mentioned at the SPI (also writes long posts at talk pages, uses same UN source in defense of same POV, mentioned they're not new), then that's pretty poor evidence to begin with, but certainly not enough to make such an unlikely connection given the difference in editing style.
Now perhaps, as DeCausa has mentioned, DrTheHistorian is someone's sock (which prima facie seems likely to me too) , but blocking them as a sock of EnlightenmentNow1792 while they clearly are not just doesn't seem right. If there is other evidence better not mentioned on-wiki, please just say so. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not continue to ping me. I have already left a comment above and I am not ultimately the blocking admin of any of the relevant users. Izno (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my tardiness in response. I was relying on the evidence in the report combined with Izno's commentary. I would prefer if others could weigh in (though Izno has bowed out). That said, I am in agreement with DeCausa and, apparently, you Apaugasma that it does seem suspicious and that they are someone's sock. Ultimately that therefore seems to me like the block was the right call then, though. WP:MEAT would still permit a block -- and blocks under MEAT are fairly routine, even if we are unclear on the master. The block was "suspected", not "proven". I can amend the block log if that would make you happier -- it's just the one auto-generated by the SPI helper. TheSandDoctor Talk 13:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.
someone's sock? Im sorry but based on what evidence?
I thought WP is based on Policies, Sources, Evidence and not opinions.
My request shows how I am not the other user, but now I am suppose to defend myself against an imaginary person?
With all due respect, but wouldn't a Meat/Sock would have already moved on from this account? Why would they be wasting time on a blocked account and be present when others respond when they can just move on to another account?
The weak evidence and opinion based accusation solely because I researched & wrote some policies on one talk is how I believe that I am being a victim of WP:SOCKOPHOBIA.
This is my first and only account, and I have been here and am fighting for it. I have been checking my page daily as I respond quickly, wrote my second request within 2 days. That is me defending my only account, something I highly doubt that a sock or meat would do. DrTheHistorian✎ 21:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, the block is justified by the fact that DrtheHistorian engaged in the same behavior at Talk:Persian Gulf as EnlightenmentNow1792, so per WP:MEAT A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining?
If so, would it be an option for DrtheHistorian to request to be unblocked on the condition of accepting a wp:topic ban on the subject of Iran, broadly construed? I'm pretty sure they're not EnlightenmentNow1792, but if they are a sock of some other master who has caused disruption in Iran-related articles, the topic ban should effectively prevent such disruption.
@DrtheHistorian: this would be a chance for you to prove that you can be a productive editor. If a considerable amount of time (say, six months to a year) has passed and you have made significant contributions to Wikipedia, you would be able to request a review of the topic ban. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good solution. I support it. DeCausa (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma: I would support your proposal as a solution. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TOP INVESTIGATION by JBW
The following was originally conceived as a fairly brief summary of my thoughts, but as I prepared it I discovered more and more details to add, so that it has, I'm afraid, become something of a wall of text. However, I don't have time now to edit it down, so I am posting it as it is. Please fell free, of course, to skim it rather than reading every word.
  • DrtheHistorian and EnlightenmentNow1792 are not the same person. I can say that with absolute confidence. The evidence that they are, on which the decision of sockpuppetry was based, is weak, and there is a far larger body of evidence that they are not.
  • Here are some samples of the very striking differences between the two accounts:
  1. The two accounts show very different approaches in expressing disagreements with other editors. EnlightenmentNow1792 habitually dismisses other editors contemptuously. Examples in edit summaries include such contemptuous remarks as "cute, i lol'd, but clearly inappropriate/WP:UNDUE", "i'll kindly do without your "protection", thankyou", "why are you always here, uninvited as a telemarketer?" Examples in talk pages include (you) "just steamrolled through with your own very, very slanted interpretation of the source (in my opinion of course), Why don't you actually bother to spend a few minutes to read the ruddy sources before making blind judgements? Why are all the most trigger-happy editors the ones least inclined to actually learn anything? Wikipedia can be so backwards on that score, If you don't interested in the issue, if you won't even her bother to spent 30, maybe even 60mins reading about it so so you can get to grips with what it's all about, then why are you even here?, and, in answer to being warned of a possible sockpuppet investigation, Please do, it'll be riveting I'm sure! and Go on then, nableezy, please be my guest, "lay this out in a sockpuppet investigation". Surely I deserve it for tormenting you all these years! There are many more examples. Unfortunately I can't provide diffs to show that DrtheHistorian doesn't do the same, because diffs can only show the presence of a particular type of action, not its absence, but I can assure you I searched and found not a single example of such contemptuous and uncivil remarks.
  2. DrTheHistorian very frequently uses underlining (or underscoring) in talk page posts; for example [1], [2], [3], [4]. I have not found a single instance of EnlightenmentNow1792 doing that.
  3. EnlightenmentNow1792 edited concerning the naming of the Persian Gulf in 2022, and in 2025 DrtheHistorian has now done so. They both express similar opinions concerning calling it the "Arabian Gulf", but that is a very common point of view, and if, as seems likely, they are both Iranian, that they feel strongly about that point is not surprising. They also both have edited other articles relating to that part of the world, though in no other case have they edited the same article, nor, it seems to me, closely related articles, and again, if they both come from that region this is scarcely evidence of being the same person. On the other hand apart from that area they each have their own editing interests, which are very different. Thus, DrtheHistorian has edited medical articles: Crigler–Najjar syndrome, Kernicterus, Primary aldosteronism, whereas EnlightenmentNow1792 has edited articles related to Russia and Ukraine: Russian Orthodox Army, Russian language, Azov Brigade.
  4. The times when they edit are strikingly different. Looking at their time cards shows that DrtheHistorian has edited only from 14:00 to 3:00 (UTC) with most of their editing being from 17:00 to 2:00; EnlightenmentNow1792 has some edits from every hourly slot except 24:00, but their busiest period has been 13:00 to 17:00.
  • Apaugasma says that "DrTheHistorian's entire editing style (language use, interaction with others, type of arguments, etc.) is so utterly different from EnlightenmentNow1792 that it's hardly credible that they should be the same person". I agree 100%.
  • OK, so much for the evidence against their being the same person (or to be more precise a sample of the evidence; there is more, but this is long enough already, without giving yet more examples). What about the evidence for their being the same person? Well, the only evidence cited in the SPI is:
  1. "Likes to write research papers instead of normal arguments in talkpages".
  2. "cites the UN".
  3. DrtheHistorian "cited" EnlightenmentNow1792 in a talk page post.
  4. DrtheHistorian "Said that they're not new to the website".
  • Since the one common point on which both accounts have edited is one on which the UN has made a pronouncement, it isn't that surprising that they should both refer to it. If DrtheHistorian found that another editor had previously expressed similar views on the same talk page, is it not perfectly natural for them to make reference to that other editor's comments? If every time anyone did that we suspected sockpuppetry, well... DrtheHistorian later explained that by "not new" to Wikipedia they meant not new to using Wikipedia, they did not mean not new to editing Wikipedia. In the context that seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable interpretation of their comment.
  • The block was the outcome of one administrator saying that they "lean toward same user", but leaving it to another administrator to decide, following another administrator saying that "I am leaning some as Izno", and then blocking as "suspected".

To summarise: I have produced numerous examples of differences between the two accounts' editing; on the other side we have just a couple of pieces of very weak circumstantial evidence, and a decision to block based on uncertain suspicions, by administrators who made it totally clear that they were not sure. What about DrtheHistorian being "someone's" sockpuppet but we don't know whose? Well, all I can say to that is that we only have someone's assertion that they hod that opinion: no evidence has been cited.

As must by now be apparent, I do not think that there is any case whatever for maintaining this block, and we should unblock. JBW (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Others comments, Thank you for your time
Thank you so much for the thorough investigation and the detailed explanations. I really appreciate the time that you have dedicated towards this. It means a lot to me. DrTheHistorian✎ 02:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping JBW. As I previously said I have no knowledge/view on whether DrtheHistorian is EnlightenmentNow1792 and wouldn't question your judgment on that. I am pretty sure they are someone's sock but wouldn't bring an SPI on that basis of course. I am curious (just curious) on one aspect of this. I saw that DrTheHistorian had singled you out to be contacted and emailed on this. Why you? I can't see any prior interaction between the two of you. I was curious enough to compare you on the Editor Interaction Analyser and saw nothing. What background did you have on this any why on earth would DrTheHistorian single you out to be contacted? As I say, just curious. DeCausa (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa: Obviously it isn't for me to say why DrtheHistorian did what they did, but in their email to me they said that they had seen another case in which I had been involved, and I came over as a "a reasonable person". JBW (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: in the thread below you say you didn't get their email because "I have changed to a different email address". That seems to imply that they had an old email address of yours which was now out of date. Why/how could they have had a previous out of date email adress of yours? DeCausa (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa: No, that isn't what happened. For some reason recently I have been having notifications of emails on Wikipedia, but those emails have not turned up in the email account that I had set on Wikipedia. It seems that for some reason the email provider (Yandex) has started blocking Wikipedia emails; I have no idea why, nor do I even know whether it's deliberate or some sort of software error. I tried sending myself an email via Wikipedia, and the same happened: a notification on Wikipedia that there was an email for me, but no email in my inbox. Because of this problem I have now changed my email address in my Wikipedia preferences, and I am now receiving Wikipedia emails properly. One of the emails that failed to arrive was from DrtheHistorian, so I suggested (below) resending it, and it has arrived in the email account that I have now set for Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @JBW, I'm so glad to see someone has gone to the trouble of going through all of this and showing their work. (You've also built up a great profile to compare DrtheHistorian to when we eventually find the right master.[just kidding]) I never managed to get very far into looking into this one and hadn't found anything that convinced me either way, so given your investigation I'm happy to agree we ought to lift the block. But there's currently an open case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EnlightenmentNow1792, and we may want to wait for CU on that one first. -- asilvering (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to defer to JBW's judgement here, and indeed take a good trouting if necessary. I concur that it would be prudent to wait for CU on the active SPI and then go from there. I won't oppose the unblock. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CU is done, and apparently, they're unlikely lol. Welcome back DrtheHistorian 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, with no opposition from the blocking admin and a pretty conclusive statement from JBW, I'll go ahead and unblock. -- asilvering (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back DrtheHistorian.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your contributions towards this long journey and the welcome back message. Time does really fly as this journey almost took two months!!!
Thank you to asilvering for unblocking me.
A Special thanks to JBW however, without their thorough investigation I don't think we would have made any real progress.
@TheSandDoctor Could you please remove the strike on my cmt here, as I believe thats not necessary anymore, Thanks.
@DeCausa Could you also reword this, Thanks. DrTheHistorian✎ 17:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Done. DeCausa (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing email

[edit]

I have received a Wikipedia notification that you have sent me an email, but the email has not arrived in my email account. I have changed to a different email address; you may like to try sending your email again. JBW (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I have resent the email again. DrTheHistorian✎ 23:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

[edit]

As you can see above, you have been unblocked. I hope you will now be able to edit without further problems. JBW (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JBW, I'm thinking of making a plaque for that investigation you wrote and leave it on my talk page, as soon as I get the time to learn how. All the best. DrTheHistorian✎ 18:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After some time I figured it out. Lots of errors on the way but it works now. Not what I was imagining but this will do until I learn some other cool features along the way. Just wanted to show you. All the best. DrTheHistorian✎ 18:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrtheHistorian&oldid=1293607707"