This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
mustor
shoulduse the articles for creation process.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.
Ten years! |
---|
... and today ;) - thank you for being around! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
Many thanks for your help and assistance over the last day or so. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 20:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Interface administrator changes
Thank you for article work in November! Look today at BB music, a little crusade of mine ;) - his birthday on St Cecilia's day, patron saint of music. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.( American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
Dona nobis pacem |
Thank you for being you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
|
|
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
Thank you for improving article quality in December, and good wishes for a time of transition. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I tried to give a good start by updating the QAI project topics. Please check and correct, - did you know that you are the project's "oldest" active member? ... and that I'm next? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.
Research notes:
The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself. [4] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.
During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.
– Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Found this old thing in my user space, that you and I (and Gerda Arendt, and User:Xanthomelanoussprog) worked on years ago, and moved/merged it into mainspace. Drmies ( talk) 15:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Nine years! |
---|
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Interface administrator changes
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at
Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
Would you have a look at the history of Calligraphy, please, because I strongly suspect that 72.69.6.226 and Owl-USA are the same person (dialect, behaviour, instant reaction). Both accounts have a "chequered history". Does it really need to a WP:ANI reference? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL Query me! 04:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.Did you click the wrong button? Drmies ( talk) 02:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
... for improving articles in March! On Bach's birthday -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Today Bach's cantata composed for today, - perhaps listen. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
... and the first performance was on a Palm Sunday, and Yoninah's obituary with the beginning of Passover - putting some little ego-battles in perspective -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The phrase "little ego-battles" comes from Antandrus, - to me it reads also like "little-ego battles". Psalm 69, see my talk. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Responding to this here, since it's getting off topic from the case. Let me offer a counter-narrative. It's hard to be the "prosecution" in an ArbCom case. Aside from the fact that I don't think the majority of people enjoy criticising others, it's hard to compile and write diff-heavy evidence. It's hard to provide context within arbitration's strict word and diff limits. More than anything else, it's hard to criticise popular Wikipedians. Because you're breaking from the herd, you will be subjected to even more scrutiny than the subject of the case, and because you are seen as the "aggressor", a blind eye will be turned to personal attacks and aspersions. As Wugapode's has eloquently explained, this is especially costly when the prosecution has less wiki-social capital than the defence, which is usually the case in admin conduct requests. So consider the possibility that when someone comes forward with evidence of an established editor misbehaving, it's not because they're a "malcontent" combing through contribs (who has the time?), it's because they were genuinely affected by that person's behaviour in the past and see an arbitration case as their chance to be heard.
Conversely, it's easy to dismiss evidence as "misleading" or "cherry-picked". I think I've heard that in every single arbitration case I've been part of, but rarely with an explanation of why. It's easy to get away with just making the assertion, because it makes intuitive sense and most people want to believe that FamiliarUsername01 didn't do anything wrong. It's easy to assume that because you know a person—you've seen them around here for years and maybe had an RL beer with them once or twice—that the friendly face you see is the same one they present to everyone else. It's easy to write off conflicting evidence as isolated incidents, because there will never be enough bad diffs to make a dint in the number of good contributions they made. So consider the possibility that when ArbCom (who, as a rule, are a labouring under extraordinary pressure not to do anything, to avoid the inevitable criticism) decide against someone you like, it's not because they are too lazy to look at the full picture, it's because, unlike the passer-by, they have to look at it, and they saw something that you didn't want to see.
And please note that I'm not saying this to paint myself as an aggrieved party in the RexxS case. Of course I'm far from it. The only reason I participated there is because I know I've built up enough wiki-social capital of my own to get off lightly, unlike others involved in it and similar cases. So I'm saying this partly as a plea to extend the same assumption of good faith to them as you do to your friends, and partly because I saw your post on Kudpung's talk page (you said "a couple ex-arbs" there but I'm pretty sure it was just me; unless you're also counting Thryduulf, who was broadly in RexxS' camp) and wanted to explain why my time on the committee has generally inclined me to see these cases in a different light. I'm not welcome on Kudpung's talk page since I drafted his case, so please do feel free to bring your aspersions on my conduct and character to me directly in future. – Joe ( talk) 19:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You've presented a lot of things there, so I'll need to address it in parts rather than in its entirety. If you are watching, then I beg your indulgence as I work on it, if not, then I'll ping you once I've had my say. — Ched ( talk) 18:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It's hard to be the "prosecution" in an ArbCom case.
I don't think the majority of people enjoy criticising others
It's hard to provide context within arbitration's strict word and diff limits.
you will be subjected to even more scrutiny than the subject of the case, and because you are seen as the "aggressor", a blind eye will be turned to personal attacks and aspersions.
As Wugapode's has eloquently explained, this is especially costly when the prosecution has less wiki-social capital than the defence, which is usually the case in admin conduct requests. So consider the possibility that when someone comes forward with evidence of an established editor misbehaving, it's not because they're a "malcontent" combing through contribs (who has the time?), it's because they were genuinely affected by that person's behaviour in the past and see an arbitration case as their chance to be heard.
A desysop would be incorrect".(I'm not sure you and I got the same impression from that post) Irony alert #2: I noticed that another of Wugapode's posts was referred to as a "tirade".
It's easy to assume that because you know a person—you've seen them around here for years and maybe had an RL beer with them once or twice—that the friendly face you see is the same one they present to everyone else.
So consider the possibility that when ArbCom (who, as a rule, are a labouring under extraordinary pressure not to do anything, to avoid the inevitable criticism) decide against someone you like, it's not because they are too lazy to look at the full picture, it's because, unlike the passer-by, they have to look at it, and they saw something that you didn't want to see.
... I've built up enough wiki-social capital of my own to get off lightly, unlike others involved in it and similar cases.
So I'm saying this partly as a plea to extend the same assumption of good faith to them as you do to your friends,
I saw your post on Kudpung's talk page (you said "a couple ex-arbs" there but I'm pretty sure it was just me; unless you're also counting Thryduulf, who was broadly in RexxS' camp)
wanted to explain why my time on the committee has generally inclined me to see these cases in a different light.
I'm not welcome on Kudpung's talk page since I drafted his case
so please do feel free to bring your aspersions on my conduct and character to me directly in future.
RexxS' RfA was contentious, with 92 editors (36%) opposing, and 15 neutral.Why didn't you finish that Joe? He also had 164 support votes. And by the way, the Arbcom principle here seems to be relevant as well. You said: "
Conversely, it's easy to dismiss evidence as "misleading" or "cherry-picked". I think I've heard that in every single arbitration case I've been part of, but rarely with an explanation of why.You want an example of "cherry-picking"? .. well that is what I consider cherry-picking. So basically, my opinion hasn't changed.
Why does porn always have to come with a negative connotation reference? — Ched ( talk) 08:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Just a reminder to myself of the childishness one must circumvent on this project. BOTH sides. Reference. No wonder the world is in such a hateful state. So sad. — Ched ( talk) 18:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
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.
Sory if Posible read Entir Mesage slowly Tonight despite Slang:
/info/en/?search=Airborne_(1993_film)
Sory if Posible reply Under each Question slowly Tonight despite Slang:
1. Acording to Website abov, Does (Airborne Film 1993) sound Familiar did You ever See Airborne?
2. Sinc most Events are Vague in my Opinion, Im wondering If I can Ask You Questions about Airborne?( 98.239.101.19 ( talk) 04:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)).
I wrot in Slang becuz my Leg Pain is 😡 At my Mom causing Me Stres, so I saw ur Name in Revision History for Airborne so I believd dat You r Fan of Airborne y Is ur Name in Revision History for Airborne?( 98.239.101.19 ( talk) 05:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)).
https://ww1.123movieshub.tc/movie/airborne/watching.html
Acording to Website abov, Would You b Interested in watching (Airborne Film 1993) for ur 1st Time?( 98.239.101.19 ( talk) 05:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)).
This page contains errors. The summary is completely wrong. It is about a burglar that stumbles upon espionage and a secret formula - not a woman that finds a cat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:345:4280:4810:EC28:82C6:9885:4246 ( talk)
MOS and discussions:
Quick! Jump in Bishzilla's pouch. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
mustor
shoulduse the articles for creation process.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.
Ten years! |
---|
... and today ;) - thank you for being around! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
Many thanks for your help and assistance over the last day or so. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 20:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Interface administrator changes
Thank you for article work in November! Look today at BB music, a little crusade of mine ;) - his birthday on St Cecilia's day, patron saint of music. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.( American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
Dona nobis pacem |
Thank you for being you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
|
|
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
Thank you for improving article quality in December, and good wishes for a time of transition. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I tried to give a good start by updating the QAI project topics. Please check and correct, - did you know that you are the project's "oldest" active member? ... and that I'm next? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.
Research notes:
The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself. [4] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.
During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.
– Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Found this old thing in my user space, that you and I (and Gerda Arendt, and User:Xanthomelanoussprog) worked on years ago, and moved/merged it into mainspace. Drmies ( talk) 15:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Nine years! |
---|
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Interface administrator changes
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at
Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
Would you have a look at the history of Calligraphy, please, because I strongly suspect that 72.69.6.226 and Owl-USA are the same person (dialect, behaviour, instant reaction). Both accounts have a "chequered history". Does it really need to a WP:ANI reference? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL Query me! 04:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.Did you click the wrong button? Drmies ( talk) 02:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
... for improving articles in March! On Bach's birthday -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Today Bach's cantata composed for today, - perhaps listen. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
... and the first performance was on a Palm Sunday, and Yoninah's obituary with the beginning of Passover - putting some little ego-battles in perspective -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The phrase "little ego-battles" comes from Antandrus, - to me it reads also like "little-ego battles". Psalm 69, see my talk. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Responding to this here, since it's getting off topic from the case. Let me offer a counter-narrative. It's hard to be the "prosecution" in an ArbCom case. Aside from the fact that I don't think the majority of people enjoy criticising others, it's hard to compile and write diff-heavy evidence. It's hard to provide context within arbitration's strict word and diff limits. More than anything else, it's hard to criticise popular Wikipedians. Because you're breaking from the herd, you will be subjected to even more scrutiny than the subject of the case, and because you are seen as the "aggressor", a blind eye will be turned to personal attacks and aspersions. As Wugapode's has eloquently explained, this is especially costly when the prosecution has less wiki-social capital than the defence, which is usually the case in admin conduct requests. So consider the possibility that when someone comes forward with evidence of an established editor misbehaving, it's not because they're a "malcontent" combing through contribs (who has the time?), it's because they were genuinely affected by that person's behaviour in the past and see an arbitration case as their chance to be heard.
Conversely, it's easy to dismiss evidence as "misleading" or "cherry-picked". I think I've heard that in every single arbitration case I've been part of, but rarely with an explanation of why. It's easy to get away with just making the assertion, because it makes intuitive sense and most people want to believe that FamiliarUsername01 didn't do anything wrong. It's easy to assume that because you know a person—you've seen them around here for years and maybe had an RL beer with them once or twice—that the friendly face you see is the same one they present to everyone else. It's easy to write off conflicting evidence as isolated incidents, because there will never be enough bad diffs to make a dint in the number of good contributions they made. So consider the possibility that when ArbCom (who, as a rule, are a labouring under extraordinary pressure not to do anything, to avoid the inevitable criticism) decide against someone you like, it's not because they are too lazy to look at the full picture, it's because, unlike the passer-by, they have to look at it, and they saw something that you didn't want to see.
And please note that I'm not saying this to paint myself as an aggrieved party in the RexxS case. Of course I'm far from it. The only reason I participated there is because I know I've built up enough wiki-social capital of my own to get off lightly, unlike others involved in it and similar cases. So I'm saying this partly as a plea to extend the same assumption of good faith to them as you do to your friends, and partly because I saw your post on Kudpung's talk page (you said "a couple ex-arbs" there but I'm pretty sure it was just me; unless you're also counting Thryduulf, who was broadly in RexxS' camp) and wanted to explain why my time on the committee has generally inclined me to see these cases in a different light. I'm not welcome on Kudpung's talk page since I drafted his case, so please do feel free to bring your aspersions on my conduct and character to me directly in future. – Joe ( talk) 19:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You've presented a lot of things there, so I'll need to address it in parts rather than in its entirety. If you are watching, then I beg your indulgence as I work on it, if not, then I'll ping you once I've had my say. — Ched ( talk) 18:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It's hard to be the "prosecution" in an ArbCom case.
I don't think the majority of people enjoy criticising others
It's hard to provide context within arbitration's strict word and diff limits.
you will be subjected to even more scrutiny than the subject of the case, and because you are seen as the "aggressor", a blind eye will be turned to personal attacks and aspersions.
As Wugapode's has eloquently explained, this is especially costly when the prosecution has less wiki-social capital than the defence, which is usually the case in admin conduct requests. So consider the possibility that when someone comes forward with evidence of an established editor misbehaving, it's not because they're a "malcontent" combing through contribs (who has the time?), it's because they were genuinely affected by that person's behaviour in the past and see an arbitration case as their chance to be heard.
A desysop would be incorrect".(I'm not sure you and I got the same impression from that post) Irony alert #2: I noticed that another of Wugapode's posts was referred to as a "tirade".
It's easy to assume that because you know a person—you've seen them around here for years and maybe had an RL beer with them once or twice—that the friendly face you see is the same one they present to everyone else.
So consider the possibility that when ArbCom (who, as a rule, are a labouring under extraordinary pressure not to do anything, to avoid the inevitable criticism) decide against someone you like, it's not because they are too lazy to look at the full picture, it's because, unlike the passer-by, they have to look at it, and they saw something that you didn't want to see.
... I've built up enough wiki-social capital of my own to get off lightly, unlike others involved in it and similar cases.
So I'm saying this partly as a plea to extend the same assumption of good faith to them as you do to your friends,
I saw your post on Kudpung's talk page (you said "a couple ex-arbs" there but I'm pretty sure it was just me; unless you're also counting Thryduulf, who was broadly in RexxS' camp)
wanted to explain why my time on the committee has generally inclined me to see these cases in a different light.
I'm not welcome on Kudpung's talk page since I drafted his case
so please do feel free to bring your aspersions on my conduct and character to me directly in future.
RexxS' RfA was contentious, with 92 editors (36%) opposing, and 15 neutral.Why didn't you finish that Joe? He also had 164 support votes. And by the way, the Arbcom principle here seems to be relevant as well. You said: "
Conversely, it's easy to dismiss evidence as "misleading" or "cherry-picked". I think I've heard that in every single arbitration case I've been part of, but rarely with an explanation of why.You want an example of "cherry-picking"? .. well that is what I consider cherry-picking. So basically, my opinion hasn't changed.
Why does porn always have to come with a negative connotation reference? — Ched ( talk) 08:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Just a reminder to myself of the childishness one must circumvent on this project. BOTH sides. Reference. No wonder the world is in such a hateful state. So sad. — Ched ( talk) 18:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
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.
Sory if Posible read Entir Mesage slowly Tonight despite Slang:
/info/en/?search=Airborne_(1993_film)
Sory if Posible reply Under each Question slowly Tonight despite Slang:
1. Acording to Website abov, Does (Airborne Film 1993) sound Familiar did You ever See Airborne?
2. Sinc most Events are Vague in my Opinion, Im wondering If I can Ask You Questions about Airborne?( 98.239.101.19 ( talk) 04:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)).
I wrot in Slang becuz my Leg Pain is 😡 At my Mom causing Me Stres, so I saw ur Name in Revision History for Airborne so I believd dat You r Fan of Airborne y Is ur Name in Revision History for Airborne?( 98.239.101.19 ( talk) 05:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)).
https://ww1.123movieshub.tc/movie/airborne/watching.html
Acording to Website abov, Would You b Interested in watching (Airborne Film 1993) for ur 1st Time?( 98.239.101.19 ( talk) 05:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)).
This page contains errors. The summary is completely wrong. It is about a burglar that stumbles upon espionage and a secret formula - not a woman that finds a cat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:345:4280:4810:EC28:82C6:9885:4246 ( talk)
MOS and discussions:
Quick! Jump in Bishzilla's pouch. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)