User talk:Dmitri Fatkin

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the wiki![edit]

Hi, I hope you find these links useful :)

Hello Dmitri Fatkin, and welcome to the Guild Wars Official Wiki! Here are a few links to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything on my talk page.

Don't be afraid to edit - anyone can edit almost any page and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better.

  • If you are new to editing wikis, have a look at our how to help article.
  • For information on the way that our articles should be laid out, see the formatting section.
  • To find out what you are and are not allowed to do on this wiki, have a look at our policy section.
  • Articles should NOT be copied directly from GuildWiki - see this copyright section for details.
  • For guidelines about personalized pages, see our user page section.
  • Before uploading any images, you may want to read the policy on user images.
Best of luck and happy editing! Fox 16:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Skill bar template[edit]

Please, instead of changing a template everyone uses to your liking, could you copy the template code to your own userspace and tweak it there? Also, it would be great if you could use the show preview instead of saving every little edit :) - anja talk 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It was you own! I'm so sorry! I viewed the page and I thought I was on the common template page, while I wasn't. Stupid me :P - anja talk 19:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's ok, np! :) Dmitri Fatkin 21:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I see you cleaned that Page. If you dont need that page any longer and want it removed then just put the following code on it:
{{delete|U1: User request.|speedy}}
--SilentStorm User SilentStorm MySig.png 00:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, just did, thx :) Dmitri Fatkin 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
np ;) --SilentStorm User SilentStorm MySig.png 00:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Guilds pages & holidays[edit]

Just to inform you all: I'm leaving for another 4 days vacation, so don't expect me to contribute to guild pages discussion in forthcoming days. Dmitri Fatkin 12:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


I agree with pretty much everything you've said and are saying concerning the guild policies. The namespace, IMO, isn't worth maintaining as a "resource." Mostly because nobody cares about it. I don't ever hear in-game "oh, I'm lfguild, I think I'll go check wiki" or "hey check out our guild page on wiki, just type in /wiki Guild:With Super Long Name That Must Be Typed Perfectly Due To MediaWiki Search Restrictions." If it really had publicity, if NPCs talked about it and linked to it like they do the xunlai house, then maybe I'd find more merit. As of now, I'd much rather it be like the user namespace - a font of creativity that an entire guild can shape and mold.
I don't see a point in unnecessarily regulating the information. If your custom page has all the same info that the infobox has (and has it just as visible/obvious), there's really no point in forcing you to change. Following the law for the sake of following the law makes one a blind zealot, and those are always dangerous to have around :/
I've asked about this several times, and that's basically the answer I've received. "Why is the guild infobox mandatory?" "We want to keep information presentable." "If the information is presentable anyway, why is the guild infobox mandatory?" "Because it's the rules." Yeah... okay. That's hanging onto policy like hell tbh.
Keep up the fight. Wiki arguments are generally won by the loudest crowd, not always the most correct one. Don't cave in until the situation has been remedied, and the wiki will prosper for your efforts :) -Auron 15:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey. To tell the truth, I'd rather simply leave that discussion, as it attracts only a slight amount of new visitors, the ones who have bothered to design something worth in the first place. I simply don't feel like rephrasing one thing over and over again to same people, it's not going to change their opinion. What they basically want is a namespace of 5000 white-paged Ascalon guilds, writing the same stuff about themselves in 5 sentences with may be 2-3 images used with no sense of fashion. And, since I'm not in any way of support to such policy, I really don't have something I could contribute to its anticipated implementation. Dmitri Fatkin 15:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting the color change on guild infobox and alliance nav[edit]

When you reverted the color change, you failed to revert it on all guild page templates. This creates a real problem. You should make sure when you are making a change that affects hundreds of wiki articles that you are thorough. --Wyn's Talk page Wynthyst 17:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Aiiane meant it should be a permanent, pre-draft change - so be it. I don't see a reason to make it in a hurry though. Dmitri Fatkin 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note that some of the changes being implemented are not 100% related to the changes currently being discussed to the policy. Things like infobox color scheme and personalization, and notable guilds may be implemented even if the policy draft fails to meet concensus.
Also, if you really want to request infoboxes colors to be personalizable, you should propose a change, or request consensus for it on Template Talk:Guild infobox, instead of the policy draft being discussed.--Fighterdoken 18:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It's already been covered by this request: Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Guilds#Customizable_colors.
Also, it's worth mentioning, that at some point of time, they actually were. Until some guilds were forced to use the standard templates. As for the link above, I don't need to additionally post here - Tomato has already posted a similar request. Notice the 'Style and Layout' inquiry, too! Dmitri Fatkin 18:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, was covered there, but quickly derived somewhere else. And in regards of the tomato's request, please note that the policy forces users to use the actual templates without customization. If the templates changes to allow more options, you are not breaking the policy (which is why i am telling you to make your proposal in the infobox page, not here).
Also, please note that just because we have been ignoring the whole "infobox" deal up to now, it doesn't mean that we allowed them. I agree that breaking the status quo without a proper warning was rude (and mostly was done just to "make a point"), but still was in rule with our policies. This current draft is just trying to prevent that happening again.--Fighterdoken 19:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
If something was used, and wasn't covered by the rules, it just shows that people needed these features not mentioned in the rules. Why should we throw away the handy features we used before someone decided to rewrite 80% of guild formatting guidelines in order to prohibit it? I'm not saying it's done by now, but this is where it goes. Dmitri Fatkin 19:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, a portion of this "something" is as of today still covered by the policy (the {{guild}} tag). Even if the new policy draft were to be rejected, such tag would still HAVE to go, unchanged. I am not going to pronounce for this in relation to {{guild infobox}} and {{alliance nav}} because it's open to interpretation given the poor wording of the policy (something that the drafts tries to fix).
If you go and check the wiki, you will see lots of things that the policy prohibites and are still there, or that the policy forces but aren't done. This doesn't mean we encourage them or allow them, is just that most users have not the interest or the time to go and fix it themselves.--Fighterdoken 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Testing on the guild infobox[edit]

If you want to test something using that infobox, create a replica in a sandbox and edit that instead. Testing something used on thousands of pages unnecessarily raises the job queue - before you reverted, it was around 4,236; after you reverted, it was 8,473. Testing should not be done on such pages. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 00:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, was just in the middle of something and needed a really quick test, will not do that again! :) Dmitri Fatkin 01:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


Could you please confirm my point on this page? Thanks :) BlazeRick 17:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Okay, I've just answered there, yet it's rather an occasional coincidence in my eyes. Dmitri Fatkin 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Guild page[edit]

Why are you creating new pages for a guild page that has been archived for inactivity? If your guild is actually still active, you should move your page to active status and THEN create new pages for it. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 04:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't consider us way too active right now so that I could see a point of moving it back. It just got updated a little bit, but SoT is generally a history, as all of us play in RAF now. We simply didn't want to assign the same solid look the guild had as SoT to what we're doing in the present. The page might get a few slight updates here and there, but on the whole, it's not going to change in a matter of content other than updated PvP builds anymore. Dmitri Fatkin 04:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I was surprised to see like half of the page deleted during the transfer. Whoever that was, he doesn't need to edit anything on this wiki for sure. ;) Dmitri Fatkin 04:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, we only keep the main guild pages in archive (see Guild page policy Historical guild page content will be limited to primary information and guild cape image. Additional images and content will be removed), so creating all those subpages, means it should be in active status, and maintained as an active page, which requires a minimum of a single edit every 3 months. So either it all moves back to active status, or the subpages will be tagged for deletion. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 04:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed it was a bot, so that explains a lot about missing subpages. Heh, you're still maintaining that policy in the name of policy? ;) Of course I can update it once in 3 months if that makes someone happy, though I really see no proper reason in editing it for the sake of showing that we're alive - we are, but under a different tag, so I don't get why it should be tagged as active. In fact, I wasn't updating that page on purpose for it to go into historical ones. Dmitri Fatkin 04:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Is the guild that is in historical status still an active, participating guild in the game? Simple question. You say you are active under a different tag, that's only possible if it is a different guild. If that is the case, the MAIN PAGE of the SoT guild should be left in historical, the rest need to be deleted, as per policy. If you have a new guild, feel free to create a new page for it, using the current, active guild name. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 07:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
SoT is a community, it's not just a Guild Wars guild. I simply don't understand the difference between whether it will be kept where it currently is or in my private space. The page got swept away by the cleanup bot, all I did is its recovery. And, if you wish to insist that much, I can keep the initial page where it is and the rest on the non-historical SoT space, but what's the purpose of all of this? Dmitri Fatkin 08:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
If your guild is active in game, it should be in the active space. If you wish to maintain all the secondary information, then again, it should be in active space, but properly maintained. As for the "clean up bot" as you put it, it is programmed to work in accordance with the guild page policy, which is that if after 3 months of inactivity on the wiki, and 3 months inactivity after being tagged, the guild page is moved into historical status, and secondary pages are deleted/removed. It's as simple as that. If you wish your guild space to remain in active status, and retain all it's secondary information, simply maintain it by editing it (even if that means simply removing the inactivity tag every 3 months). It's that simple. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 08:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not active in the game, we're playing in RAF. Period. Dmitri Fatkin 08:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As a side note[edit]

I want to be clear that your desire to see a clean and respectful wiki is a great one, and one that I truly appreciate. When we have that goal, and set ourselves as examples, we raise the bar and hope others follow.

If you see a poorly written post like the ones that appear on Joe's feedback page, feel free to point out to the contributor how their use of swear words ended up shooting themselves in the foot (don't attack them, attack their verbage, of course). Demonstrate to them how they should have written in order for them to be actually listened to. You've got high standards, and teaching others to meet them is something I think you can do. Silencing doesn't always make a person reflect on their actions, but speaking to them might. G R E E N E R 02:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So you're suggesting to mix the keg of honey with a spoon of tar and act as if it's still honey for the tea? I'm sorry, but it's not the one I would offer to Joe or ArenaNet in general, to tell more, I'll try to avoid participating in such discussions at all costs as all my input in this case would do is warm-up the dull-minded trolls. I'm sorry, but Mountain Trolls Cave farming is not something I considered admirable even back to 2005, and now, it would be just :-\ It's not my responsibility to enlighten or educate them, the best thing I could do while encountering those at the Feedback Pages is spend a minute or two weeding out the most offending parts of their rhetoric so that it wouldn't look as if it was arranged by completely unbred kids. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Skill Nav Revamp[edit]

Requesting feedback on Skill Nav Revamp. --Falconeye (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

All right, will take a look at it later today. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Show preview[edit]

Just taking a look at this history, you made 12 edits to this section, 11 of which were to another user's contributions. While cleaning up a link or adding proper wiki code is appreciated, changing the words another player used is not.

Additionally, could you use the show preview more often? Filling up the RC makes it a pain to trudge through. Thanks! G R E E N E R 15:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Good evening. I thought it would actually look better and become more readable this way, so what's started as correction of links has turned into a global revamp of the concept, not intentionally, though, and I believe there's also the original version in place at Sir Sledge's own user space. If he'll want to adjust something later on, he could simply copy it off the corresponding draft, however, I'm absolutely confident that the performed edits served as a good example on how to actually organize constructive, and, what's more important, easily-readable feedback. I wouldn't even be willing to emend the works as lengthy as this one normally, since such responsibility is on the author's shoulders and takes way too much time (more than 2 hours) to get it all sorted out properly. As for the Preview button, since it initially wasn't my article, I haven't been saving anything in Notepad as I usually do, so that explains the number of edits more or less, I guess. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed after moving and saving that all of your wiki links were not grabbed. I'll see what I can do about going and getting those re-added. Give me a few minutes on that. G R E E N E R 17:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
All right, as it seems to me, even in the form I provided, his concept is still in need of further elaboration. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) So, it seems you also added the wiki-links in chunks, along with the edits to his words. You had all the right intentions, and believe me when I say they were the right intentions, but I can't parse those two actions apart. Heck, If you just get Sir Sledge's permission to use your edited version, I'll gladly over-write things.
And yes, further elaboration is needed, but all suggestions start there. G R E E N E R 17:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
He can simply grab the last edition of mine, if he'll want to. In the end, it was done for Joe's sake, since people with intense schedule have limited amount of time to delve into things, like you said. :) Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the updates![edit]

I know I'm generally quite reluctant to click on so many out-of-date links, so thanks for biting that bullet! G R E E N E R 17:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks! Though next time, please use 'Show preview' and continue editing within the same revision, instead of saving every small change individually. It really clutters the Recent changes. - Infinite - talk 18:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, folks. :) To be honest, it was rather tedious, and there actually is a reason of why I decided to do it step-by-step: the first is that there might have been the necessity to revert, and the second, which is even more important - editing it in Notepad would have slowed down the whole task by an additional hour. And while I appreciate the accuracy of information the Wiki provides, I usually tend not to be the one who goes wading through large-scaled & considerably-outdated arrays. While it was easy to initially get the list started by copying it from the official Guild Wars website, the cleanup thing I've done today was exactly the opposite, as I had to go through all of the provided links, check if the site has moved, and sometimes, in case it did or vanished, locate the corresponding alternatives. So it was done the way it was, since I knew it had to be only once, and while it produced a little bit of spam, making it otherwise would have turned it into a bigger project with less likelihood to complete, at least on my part. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ascalon Academy and such[edit]

Hello Dmitri ! This is Ruine ! How are you ? You wrote too much things on Joe's page i can't even reply XD. Nice to see someone support me :-) Hope you saw the new section ? The idea of a pool of skills only for the PvP arena (like the current codex arena) is brilliant and xp for LDoA is great, though some might prefer have survivor r1.-- 15:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, no need to go into details right now on Joe's page ; he will probably not read it all. Keep your ideas warm somewhere until we get a dedicated page. As I imagine it, people during the challenge would have their level set to 3 (it's the level of the NPCs i think) (think about the armor). I leave the pool of skills to you, as I seldom play PvP, but only core and early prophecies skills. They would be specifically unlocked for this challenge, much like the current Codex Arena. Outpost will be Ascalon Academy (PvP Arena). We need a NPC to get into the outpost (let's say something like Lieutenant Dimitri :-P). And the old PvP part will be removed.
Two questions left are : which level and skills ? Too much skills kinda destroy pre but there need to be some in order for people to have choice. Also whatever the level we choose, attributes will not be so easy to set (journey to the north and consulate docks boost both work and set the level to 20, but attributes to 9)
I also would like some way to explore Ascalon Academy (explorable area) so another NPC might be added (Captain Kimmes-well, he already have his NPC, but if we can have this, who cares ? )-- 21:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Good evening, Ruine. Yes, I certainly have noticed it appearing. :) Answering your question, the trick is of being able to balance it for the competition regardless of character and armor level. I'm pretty much sure it's possible, however, it's not something one would easily finish by a single day's sunset, especially without appropriate tools and testing environment. In either way, this is an interesting task to participate in. :) Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

GWW: Users[edit]

Learn to read the policies and your so called, "it doesn't take away my right to amend previously-submitted own postings for purposes completely unrelated to any users trying to do the reverts" rights.

User states "Your talk page should generally be treated like any other talk page on the wiki. Do not remove any comments, including your own. You may amend your comments to correct typos, but if you wish to change your comment significantly, strike out the portions that you are changing (use ). Comments constituting personal abuse may be removed as per Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks.". Thank you and have a pleasant day/night. Rodan (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We have admin and bureaucrats here for a reason, Rodan; you can leave the quoting of policy to us. The situation has come and gone, and no more needs to be said. G R E E N E R 07:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Good day, fellows. I endorse Greener's point that it's got entirely resolved, and did so in compliance with GWW:USER, as far as I'm concerned. At the same time, I feel that a brief explanation of why I wanted this very exact commentary to be stroke out, might still be pertinent here.
It's linked with my acquired-over-time outlook on how one should adhere corporate culture, especially in cases when one expects a future mutually-beneficial collaboration with given company. I simply asked myself a question: if you've seen some of the extended parts of product development, should it actually be thoroughly characterized as back-up argument in a discussion with rather prejudiced user without a likelihood of considerably shifting his opinion? Obviously not, especially in a long post more reminding a tech doc than a well-reasoned line of thought to strengthen the previously-written.
And since it wasn't doing any of it and looked more like the opposite, I felt that a bit of belated editing within my own replies might be appropriate here. Thanks for understanding. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The only thing you're doing in an archive post is confusing people. There is such a thing as Let it go; forgetting it all in the first place and having left it all alone. She answered your post, which you're marking out for no real reason and of which you claim to be reasons that aren't. It would have been better to have considered that as a whole, before you did your irrational moves and caused the problem. Thanks. Rodan (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

FAPS stolen[edit]

Hi, I'm the guild-leader of FAPS, can I ask you why did you remove what I added? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 03:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

Hi there. I did because it contained individually-directed accusation, such as "a well-known scammer/syncer". Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on things[edit]

Much appreciated with those reverts. If in the future things happen to get overwhelming or counterproductive (e.g. the spambot just keeps hitting the same page), you can leave a message on the admin page and I can use super-admin powers to fix things. If you don't hear a response and the case is extreme, feel free to hit the gw2 admin page.

Thanks though for taking care of that spam. G R E E N E R 10:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Good evening, Greener. Yes, I've noticed recently that GWW's admins tend to appear more often on the GW2Wiki, and eventually, after spending more than 20 minutes doing the reverts, I began considering the opportunity of reaching someone there. At the same time, I was hoping the spambot's script could just stop proceeding through new pages on its own, and luckily, its spamming pell-mell didn't flow over the border. As far as I recall, things as such didn't have a stable tendency of occurring here for the last few years, and thus, today's case didn't bring too much worries. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

This slipped in during pruning. Thank you for adding it back, and I apologize for any confusion I may have caused among the community (if any). I checked every site twice before removing, as such I must have accidentally deleted one line too many in the whole process. - Infinite - talk 12:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

They tend to change the names slightly sometimes, especially in case of the forums, that's why when I was revising this page the last autumn, I proceeded with the renewal link by link, using multiple means to ensure that the site was actually unavailable and didn't change its section within a domain, haven't got moved to another one, etc. It's a typical thing though that when one browses through massive arrays of data while trying to introduce adjustments along the way, a few small things tend to get omitted and it's a nature of the wiki for the other editors to notice such overlooks and collaborate, so there shouldn't be any serious concerns about that. Glad I could help. :) Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

To clarify[edit]

Hello! Before I attempt to explain it via edit summary again, take a look at {{User GW2W}}'s edit page. When transcluding that page (like how you have correctly done with the other article in the sandbox), it pulls all the content that has no tags around it. In the case of my example, that is the userbox itself. As you can see on the edit page there, it also uses <noinclude> tags to hide the linebreak, the description, and the category from pages where the template is used. Lastly it uses <onlyinclude> tags to apply a category to any page where the template is used, but is not applied on the template page itself. I hope that makes it all a bit clearer. Alternatively you can copy the data you want into your userspace, so you don't have to transclude the page at all. Good luck and happy wiki-ing! - Infinite - talk 10:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Good evening, and thanks for the reference. Based on it and one other source, I've pulled a bunch of slight changes to category listings of Armor pages to prevent them from assigning exactly the same category markers for all of possible pages from where that content is transcluded. Some users have been embedding such armor listings through utilization of {{:Page name}} template invocations on their personal pages, thus adding the latter to the lists of armor categories. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've also noticed this. We can apply <noinclude></noinclude> tags to the categories for all articles that are often transcluded to user space. I'm really busy throughout these upcoming two weeks, but I can assist with technical problems or other issues that might surface. I will usually check back a few times per day. - Infinite - talk 13:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Exposed Underbelly[edit]

Can I ask where you got your details for Exposed Underbelly from? As a pretty avid FA player it's interesting but I'm not sure where those numbers came from as I've not seen them elsewhere... Loggy (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Good evening. Their origin is the skill's in-game description, although I'm not certain how accurately it conveys what this passive trait does exactly in practical application right now, since it's been around for quite a long time, as its ID exhibits. Perhaps, it's worth an extensive test in the game... I've also asked Dr. Stephen Clarke-Willson if he's able to provide additional data on the subject when the opportunity arises. In that case, I'll have it supplemented into the skill's article. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
That would make sense. I know that it makes normal wanding hit around 70, and if it caused everything else to do triple damage then keeping a turtle up during a flip would be more or less impossible as most things would hit easily into the 200s. It also supports the observation that seemingly every damage packet on a flipped turtle triggers spirit bond. That suggests that it behaves as the description suggests rather than a simple -AR effect as the mainspace page currently says. I guess I assumed the in-game descriptions for these things would've been all taken years ago when skills templates would still display nonplayer skill IDs on templates, but it seems not. Loggy (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Updating web links[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to find those locations. I know it can be a real pain in some cases! Greener (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Moving guilds to user spaces[edit]

Why are you moving guilds to people's user spaces? Have you received permission to modify their user space? Some of those guild pages haven't been edited in years. The one of the points of archiving the guild namespace is to have pages left in situ, as the guilds chose to leave them. Greener (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Good evening. I hope that my reply on GW2W Discord has helped to understand the reasoning of why I thought such movements were done in favor of editors who might be interested in providing further slight changes to these pages. I've noticed you've moved some of them back based on your own outlook on the situation, thus, I suppose what had to be put on the right shelves is already there and the matter is entirely resolved. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)