This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Experts Exchange article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Experts Exchange was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
9/5/2009
https://secure.experts-exchange.com/lockedLimitedMember.jsp
"Site access is now limited to Premium Service Members. Convert your account in just minutes and stay connected to the #1 resource for solving technology problems on the web."
================================
Additionally as a premium paying member I was denied the right to post a new question because I had 1 abandoned question that was unanswered and as such left open. After hours and hours of web searching for a solution I turned to Experts Exchange to post a question and after writing the question I found that I could only post it in one category called "Community Support - Expert Input". All I can say was I was even more frustrated than I was before I started the process. I had no idea what was going on, thought it was an update error so I sent a question to their support and was informed that this was the policy. I have since been back and forth with Experts Exchange support and management and they refuse to review their backward policy. A complaint has been filed with the Better Business Bureau and I urge you to do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.69.162 ( talk) 18:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC) This site doesn't deeserve a Canadian penny. The exerpts are tyros. In thirty days, not one of the so-called experts could answer simple question concerning access to Windows online help service. In fact the so-called experts are front-men for selling computer users anti-virus software they probbably don't need. Total ripoff website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantaman ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
"One must be a member of Experts-Exchange to be able to ask questions. As of late 2007, it is also necessary to be a member to view the solutions."
False. I have never signed up or become a member in any way and I can view the solutions from any computer. Find a question, like this one I literally just clicked the first one I found, such as: http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Linux/Distributions/Debian/Q_22781274.html
If you click the link mentioned here it actually asks you to be a member!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.200.92 ( talk) 03:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The question is, "How do I change my hostname in Debian?" The answer is, "owensleftfoot: Change /etc/hostname and run /etc/init.d/hostname.sh start to make the change active Accepted Solution"
It even shows the assisted solution.
Found by scrolling down the page, all the way to the bottom, or by pressing the End button on your keyboard. I have been using experts-exchange just like many other sites on google for years now, and have never had to sign up for any solutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.93.72.3 ( talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This may be of your interest as well! huji— TALK 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have an objection to the following sentence: "Experts-Exchange has more than 2 million solutions now." The reference points to Experts' Exchange own testamonials site, so it's hardly a watertight reference. At best it could be quoted as being "claimed" to have 2 million. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I object to this: "Experts-Exchange has mostly been among the top 800 visited websites in the first 6 months of 2009, based on Alexa's ranking" Firstly it's current ranking is 988 as of 29 April 2009, secondly the ranking is based on average daily pageviews and visitors over the past 3 months, nothing to do with the 6 months of 2009 that we haven't had yet as of the end of April.
Just because something is there, it doesn't mean it is important enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. For example, there is a user script (mentioned in this article) which allows Google users to remove results from Experts-Exchange in their searches. Since this script was mentioned by (at least) a few other blogs and forums, it was (at least marginally) notable enough to be included in the article. Similarly, there is a PHP script which searches Experts-Exchange for answers to a given question inside Experts-Exchange web site, and imports the answers. It is there, but it doesn't seem notable enough, and is not mentioned on the article.
Same applies for the reverse too. Just because there is another script/weblog/etc on the net which objects EE, it doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the article. We should first see if "others" have shown interest in that script/weblog/etc. If yes (and I mean a big, significant yes which can satisfy others), we can add it; otherwise, we shouldn't.
I hope everyone reads these lines before trying to add/re-add non-notable links to the article. huji— TALK 16:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Quick note: Experts Exchange was the single most blocked site when Google offered that functionality through Panda. Source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.56.178 ( talk) 21:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The whole article sounds very self-promoting, for example: "Experts-Exchange has been praised as one of the best technical support sites by some of its reviewers.[25][26][27][28] PC Magazine lists Experts-Exchange as one of the top 101 websites. [26]" Just because there are references, doesn't mean they and the information they convey should be included. Number of solutions and number of Alexa hits also sound very commercial-like. Tsk-tsk, expertsexchange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.107.194 ( talk) 15:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to be heavily biased to me Gbickford ( talk) 17:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Experts-Exchange is abusing of cloaking, and that should be mentioned in the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.37.8.242 ( talk) 10:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This article sounds very self promoting, with no neutral or negative content. ""Experts-Exchange has been praised as one of the best technical support sites by some of its reviewers" This, and all similar content should be removed. I believe this violates the WP:SOAP as advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.67.229.124 ( talk) 07:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
EE is one of the worst technical sites, considering the information you could get elsewhere and with less hassle. 68.161.91.20 ( talk) 16:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Interesting how most of the above EE bashers are unsigned... Although I personally agree that the so-called pay-wall should be removed or at least reduced, the claims that EE is cloaking is as of April 2010 untrue and the note that the pay-wall can be bypassed by scrolling down on an answer is still the case. Mplungjan ( talk) 08:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Somebody should kill EE once and for all. And who the fuck is Austin Miller and Randy Redberg ?
Why was the criticism section removed? I must say that while it is trivial to work around the paywall, it is unethical to actually link people looking for a quick and free answer from Google to a paywall. And whatever you guys say about the paywall being removed when referred from Google, I have always encountered and worked around it - and god knows how many times I've been hitting their website. It is a particularly disgusting behavior of EE to somehow rank high in Google, and force the user to pay for the content that CAN BE SEEN in the little description text in Google. And I won't even mention EE breaching several if not all of Google's rules on ranked websites - this is just wrong. I suggest the criticism section be reworded and put back into the article. Ye can't hide thy truth. 121.73.17.17 ( talk) 02:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen this criticism section, but one of the first suggestions I got from entering "Experts Exchange" into the Google search bar was "Experts Exchange scam." A search for just "Experts Exchange" will turn up many results expressing disdain and scorn for the site. Personally, I've found a few gems in Experts Exchange, but like all other sites it's full of shit as well. The Code Project's forums is a much better place to find experts. If Google isn't penalizing sites for generating negative sentiments towards it, it should. It's already done it to many businesses that take advantage of negative reviews for publicity. 68.161.91.20 ( talk) 16:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
What is the point in telling people you haven't (been bothered to) view an old version of the article, or a section it used to have? Just Do It. Then you won't need to admit your laziness. 202.159.146.232 ( talk) 02:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Interest disclosure: I am an employee at Experts Exchange, LLC.
I've got two recommendations for this article. The name of the company is "Experts Exchange, LLC." The name of the site is "Experts Exchange." We should remove the hyphen from the name of the article.
Speaking of hyphens, the article says this: "Originally, Experts-Exchange could be reached by visiting expertsexchange.com, but this domain was later abandoned because it was felt that it could be too easily misinterpreted to read as 'Expert Sex Change'." The source given is a Snopes.com article that says this: "Experts Exchange, a programming advice and discussion web site, uses a domain name that might attract queries from prospective patients seeking informed advice about transgender surgery: expertsexchange.com." That source does not say whether or not the hyphen was present in the original domain, nor does it speculate on why the hyphen was added (if it was ever missing in the first place), so it shouldn't be used as a source of that sentence in this article. CPColin ( talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The Snopes article may not cite the source, but the Internet Archive has a copy of the redirect at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040604200137/http://www.expertsexchange.com/
Karsini (
talk)
12:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Or do you know any method to read answers without paying anything?
I have reported the web site to Google and I ask everyone else to do that. 88.192.39.165 ( talk) 21:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Under "History":
Are these separate bankruptcies? Or can they be consolidated?
"Originally, Experts Exchange could formerly be reached" Is there any benefit to the redundancy of packing both "originally" and "formerly" into this sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.218.239 ( talk) 08:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Experts-Exchange. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Should it be "Experts-Exchange" or "Experts Exchange"? The first is used as the title, and the second in the body. -- Mortense ( talk) 16:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Experts-Exchange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Changes were made to make page up to date. Changes were made by someone affiliated with company. Beedee1234 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The logo needs to be updated on this page, they recently went through a rebrand ---- Cartermyoung ( talk) 15:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The logo being used as the primary image for Experts Exchange is an outdated one. It needs to be updated to their logo, the one that is currently used in the top left corner of their homepage: https://go.experts-exchange.com/ Here is a direct link to the file: https://assets.website-files.com/5fff1b1358bb91e4a3cb82ee/61f007fccc78ab06252df575_logo%20primary.svg
X: Change the logo that is currently being used as the primary image to Y: the one that is currently used in the top left corner of their homepage: https://assets.website-files.com/5fff1b1358bb91e4a3cb82ee/61f007fccc78ab06252df575_logo%20primary.svg Masonbrown1296 ( talk) 14:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Experts Exchange article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Experts Exchange was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
9/5/2009
https://secure.experts-exchange.com/lockedLimitedMember.jsp
"Site access is now limited to Premium Service Members. Convert your account in just minutes and stay connected to the #1 resource for solving technology problems on the web."
================================
Additionally as a premium paying member I was denied the right to post a new question because I had 1 abandoned question that was unanswered and as such left open. After hours and hours of web searching for a solution I turned to Experts Exchange to post a question and after writing the question I found that I could only post it in one category called "Community Support - Expert Input". All I can say was I was even more frustrated than I was before I started the process. I had no idea what was going on, thought it was an update error so I sent a question to their support and was informed that this was the policy. I have since been back and forth with Experts Exchange support and management and they refuse to review their backward policy. A complaint has been filed with the Better Business Bureau and I urge you to do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.69.162 ( talk) 18:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC) This site doesn't deeserve a Canadian penny. The exerpts are tyros. In thirty days, not one of the so-called experts could answer simple question concerning access to Windows online help service. In fact the so-called experts are front-men for selling computer users anti-virus software they probbably don't need. Total ripoff website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantaman ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
"One must be a member of Experts-Exchange to be able to ask questions. As of late 2007, it is also necessary to be a member to view the solutions."
False. I have never signed up or become a member in any way and I can view the solutions from any computer. Find a question, like this one I literally just clicked the first one I found, such as: http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Linux/Distributions/Debian/Q_22781274.html
If you click the link mentioned here it actually asks you to be a member!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.200.92 ( talk) 03:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The question is, "How do I change my hostname in Debian?" The answer is, "owensleftfoot: Change /etc/hostname and run /etc/init.d/hostname.sh start to make the change active Accepted Solution"
It even shows the assisted solution.
Found by scrolling down the page, all the way to the bottom, or by pressing the End button on your keyboard. I have been using experts-exchange just like many other sites on google for years now, and have never had to sign up for any solutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.93.72.3 ( talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This may be of your interest as well! huji— TALK 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have an objection to the following sentence: "Experts-Exchange has more than 2 million solutions now." The reference points to Experts' Exchange own testamonials site, so it's hardly a watertight reference. At best it could be quoted as being "claimed" to have 2 million. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I object to this: "Experts-Exchange has mostly been among the top 800 visited websites in the first 6 months of 2009, based on Alexa's ranking" Firstly it's current ranking is 988 as of 29 April 2009, secondly the ranking is based on average daily pageviews and visitors over the past 3 months, nothing to do with the 6 months of 2009 that we haven't had yet as of the end of April.
Just because something is there, it doesn't mean it is important enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. For example, there is a user script (mentioned in this article) which allows Google users to remove results from Experts-Exchange in their searches. Since this script was mentioned by (at least) a few other blogs and forums, it was (at least marginally) notable enough to be included in the article. Similarly, there is a PHP script which searches Experts-Exchange for answers to a given question inside Experts-Exchange web site, and imports the answers. It is there, but it doesn't seem notable enough, and is not mentioned on the article.
Same applies for the reverse too. Just because there is another script/weblog/etc on the net which objects EE, it doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the article. We should first see if "others" have shown interest in that script/weblog/etc. If yes (and I mean a big, significant yes which can satisfy others), we can add it; otherwise, we shouldn't.
I hope everyone reads these lines before trying to add/re-add non-notable links to the article. huji— TALK 16:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Quick note: Experts Exchange was the single most blocked site when Google offered that functionality through Panda. Source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.56.178 ( talk) 21:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The whole article sounds very self-promoting, for example: "Experts-Exchange has been praised as one of the best technical support sites by some of its reviewers.[25][26][27][28] PC Magazine lists Experts-Exchange as one of the top 101 websites. [26]" Just because there are references, doesn't mean they and the information they convey should be included. Number of solutions and number of Alexa hits also sound very commercial-like. Tsk-tsk, expertsexchange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.107.194 ( talk) 15:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to be heavily biased to me Gbickford ( talk) 17:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Experts-Exchange is abusing of cloaking, and that should be mentioned in the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.37.8.242 ( talk) 10:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This article sounds very self promoting, with no neutral or negative content. ""Experts-Exchange has been praised as one of the best technical support sites by some of its reviewers" This, and all similar content should be removed. I believe this violates the WP:SOAP as advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.67.229.124 ( talk) 07:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
EE is one of the worst technical sites, considering the information you could get elsewhere and with less hassle. 68.161.91.20 ( talk) 16:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Interesting how most of the above EE bashers are unsigned... Although I personally agree that the so-called pay-wall should be removed or at least reduced, the claims that EE is cloaking is as of April 2010 untrue and the note that the pay-wall can be bypassed by scrolling down on an answer is still the case. Mplungjan ( talk) 08:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Somebody should kill EE once and for all. And who the fuck is Austin Miller and Randy Redberg ?
Why was the criticism section removed? I must say that while it is trivial to work around the paywall, it is unethical to actually link people looking for a quick and free answer from Google to a paywall. And whatever you guys say about the paywall being removed when referred from Google, I have always encountered and worked around it - and god knows how many times I've been hitting their website. It is a particularly disgusting behavior of EE to somehow rank high in Google, and force the user to pay for the content that CAN BE SEEN in the little description text in Google. And I won't even mention EE breaching several if not all of Google's rules on ranked websites - this is just wrong. I suggest the criticism section be reworded and put back into the article. Ye can't hide thy truth. 121.73.17.17 ( talk) 02:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen this criticism section, but one of the first suggestions I got from entering "Experts Exchange" into the Google search bar was "Experts Exchange scam." A search for just "Experts Exchange" will turn up many results expressing disdain and scorn for the site. Personally, I've found a few gems in Experts Exchange, but like all other sites it's full of shit as well. The Code Project's forums is a much better place to find experts. If Google isn't penalizing sites for generating negative sentiments towards it, it should. It's already done it to many businesses that take advantage of negative reviews for publicity. 68.161.91.20 ( talk) 16:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
What is the point in telling people you haven't (been bothered to) view an old version of the article, or a section it used to have? Just Do It. Then you won't need to admit your laziness. 202.159.146.232 ( talk) 02:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Interest disclosure: I am an employee at Experts Exchange, LLC.
I've got two recommendations for this article. The name of the company is "Experts Exchange, LLC." The name of the site is "Experts Exchange." We should remove the hyphen from the name of the article.
Speaking of hyphens, the article says this: "Originally, Experts-Exchange could be reached by visiting expertsexchange.com, but this domain was later abandoned because it was felt that it could be too easily misinterpreted to read as 'Expert Sex Change'." The source given is a Snopes.com article that says this: "Experts Exchange, a programming advice and discussion web site, uses a domain name that might attract queries from prospective patients seeking informed advice about transgender surgery: expertsexchange.com." That source does not say whether or not the hyphen was present in the original domain, nor does it speculate on why the hyphen was added (if it was ever missing in the first place), so it shouldn't be used as a source of that sentence in this article. CPColin ( talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The Snopes article may not cite the source, but the Internet Archive has a copy of the redirect at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040604200137/http://www.expertsexchange.com/
Karsini (
talk)
12:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Or do you know any method to read answers without paying anything?
I have reported the web site to Google and I ask everyone else to do that. 88.192.39.165 ( talk) 21:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Under "History":
Are these separate bankruptcies? Or can they be consolidated?
"Originally, Experts Exchange could formerly be reached" Is there any benefit to the redundancy of packing both "originally" and "formerly" into this sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.218.239 ( talk) 08:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Experts-Exchange. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Should it be "Experts-Exchange" or "Experts Exchange"? The first is used as the title, and the second in the body. -- Mortense ( talk) 16:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Experts-Exchange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Changes were made to make page up to date. Changes were made by someone affiliated with company. Beedee1234 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The logo needs to be updated on this page, they recently went through a rebrand ---- Cartermyoung ( talk) 15:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The logo being used as the primary image for Experts Exchange is an outdated one. It needs to be updated to their logo, the one that is currently used in the top left corner of their homepage: https://go.experts-exchange.com/ Here is a direct link to the file: https://assets.website-files.com/5fff1b1358bb91e4a3cb82ee/61f007fccc78ab06252df575_logo%20primary.svg
X: Change the logo that is currently being used as the primary image to Y: the one that is currently used in the top left corner of their homepage: https://assets.website-files.com/5fff1b1358bb91e4a3cb82ee/61f007fccc78ab06252df575_logo%20primary.svg Masonbrown1296 ( talk) 14:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)