User talk:KYPark

Hello KYPark, I'm not a wikipedian but I've read your input for the Huns talk page. I also think there are such type of connections you mention. My email is pedersen@visi.com. Could you give me your email? Best regards, Tom Pedersen, St. Paul, MN USA

Welcome!

Hello, KYPark, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nietzsche

Hey, I'm not trying to dismiss your addition to the Nietzsche article. It can always be recovered in the history. I just think it would go better in another article. Perhaps it's time for a "Philosophy of Nietzsche" or "Nietzsche's Philosophy" article. This material might go well there. My point is simply that this article is a biography, and is already getting kinda big. No offense meant, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you would like to pilot a new article, please do. Or if you want, we can put your additions up for a vote in the discussion. --DanielCD 15:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To make your ID blue, just save something on your user page. Just click the user page tab at the top of this page and save something there. --DanielCD 13:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welby

I've removed the (slightly pointed) description of the link; the article is derived from that page (and its published version) together with one or twwo other sources. I have permission to use the linked article here, but preferred to rewrite it. If you're interested in adding more, or rewriting it further, that would be very welcome. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

안영하새요

최승함니다. 한국말 못해도라도, 국어으로 인사 하고 시퍼습니다. 저는 영국애 살고이습니다 한국 사람이랑 켜런해습니다. 군이 article 일고, 너무 행벅햇어요 저이 초산 이야기 알고잇는 한국 사람 잇기대무내. 저는여기소 지금 만히 스고 실습니다. 헉시 email 이슴연 저한태 message 번해주새요. Hvalimir 00:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad to correct your Korean writing as follows:

안녕하세요

죄송합니다. 한국말 못하더라도, 국어로 인사하고 싶었습니다. 저는 영국에 살고있습니다. 한국 사람이랑 결혼했습니다. 군이 article 읽고, 너무 행복했어요. 저희 조선 이야기 알고 있는 한국 사람 있기 때문에. 저는 여기서 지금 많이 쓰고 싶습니다. 혹시 email 있으면 저한테 message 전해주세요.

In the near future I will let you know my email address. Until then we will communicate formally, through wiki. By the way what do you mean by "-mir" of your name? It means "dragon" in Old Korean, which is likely akin to "mur" (water). I wonder if you are English or what?

Thank you very much for the corrections. Actually, 실다 is the effect I was wanting to convey not 싶다, but my spelling is attrocious. I don't mind Korean folk reading, but otherwise don't want to broadcast my conversations over the internet. I wonder if you could help me choose a name for my half "Amazon" daughter. A word like Noeul is a HanGeul word and meaning glow at sunrise/sunset has a fundamental meaning of light which I feel corresponds to Arabic Noor and Aramaic Nahor and even Irish Nora and Hurrian Nihiri all with the fundamental meanings of light. This word also works nicely as a name in Korea asd well as in English speaking countries (sounds like Noel). But I don't want to use this word, and I wonder if you could help me find other words which work nicely with this sort of connections & sound. Especially Hebrew/Aramaic/Hurrian conncections to Korean. Please feel free to send me an email through the wiki email service. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. P.S. Mir means world-peace in old slavonic, Hval means praise, but it is also the name the Yeoptal used for themselves in Korean pronunciation.Hvalimir 21:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to cross-reference

Hello. This message is regarding the page cross-reference. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

∧

Contexualism category

Hi, you recently added lots of articles to the "contexualism" category. There's no article on "Contexualism" or any other sources to explain what this category is, or otherwise make this category useful. Can you supply reliable sources to support the inclusion of these articles in this category? Pete.Hurd 14:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. But you missed one of two t's in Contextualism. --gybag 15:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, so I did, but I really don't see why for example: Hypertext, World Wide Web, Dynamical system, Nature versus nurture and David Bohm (to mention just a few) fall into this category, it seems kinda senseless. Pete.Hurd 18:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on Category talk:Contextualism about what the idea behind the category is, please? -- Rbellin|Talk 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sooner or later I will reply to both of you on Category talk:Contextualism. --gybag 00:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I've nominated this category for deletion as original research; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 9#Category:Contextualism. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publications of John McDowell

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Publications of John McDowell, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Mysdaao ^talk 22:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-reference

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Cross-reference, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cognitive science literature

I doubt I would be the only one who considers putting The Selfish Gene in this category a bit of a stretch. It isn't exactly a book on cognitive science, at least no more than it is a book on biogeography or English politics. I suspect some of the other articles in that category are a similar stretch too... Richard001 (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I know what you're getting at here - the meme thing. It still isn't exactly a cognitive science book, just one that touches on cognitive science, but I'll leave it to your discretion as this isn't really my "territory". Richard001 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your use page

Hi, according to the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy and the Wikipedia:User page guideline, extensive content which is not closely related to editing Wikipedia is not allowed on user pages. Kindly take this into account and edit your user page accordingly, please. Thank you. --Kjoonlee 11:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have many user subpages Special:PrefixIndex/User:KYPark, but their organization gives me the impression the information is for your personal use rather than for other people at Wikipedia... --Kjoonlee 11:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my subpages so far are mostly objective references or metadata that would help anyone edit Wikipedia. So I wonder why you seem to take them for my improper personal use. Of course, no one but myself would edit my pages, which may be inevitably biased by the bound of my knowledge and information. But I'm afraid everyone is biased. My subpages aim for an annotated bibliography to be accessed and edited with an exceptional ease. This sample page may show you how a reference is related to many other works or articles, causally or accidentally. Wikipedia may rather miss this evolutionary way of knowledge organization. --KYPark (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objectiveness is irrelevant and for the last three years you have made no effort to make those pages accessible to other users. --Kjoonlee 00:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by your comment "Objectiveness is irrelevant." It's literally true that "for the last three years [I] have made no [such] effort." But "those pages" are just a week or so old, under construction! Please wait some time for their maturity enough for other users. --KYPark (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are using Wikipedia as a hosting space for your materials. If you think your materials are helpful to others, you should make that very clear on your own pages. How else can they be justified to stay?

I thought your subpages were very old as well, but it looks like that was a wrong impression. However, your user page is about three years old and it has had no edits from other people AFAICT. From looking at the Robbert Russell (sp?) page I see there's not much common between your page and the Wikipedia article. Thus this leads me to believe that you aren't using the pages to help you in editing Wikipedia either... If it doesn't help you, how can the pages be helpful to anyone else..? --Kjoonlee 14:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd reply (sorry to start leftmost)

``You are using Wikipedia as a hosting space for your materials.``

This opening passage is supposed to be your conclusion, which appears rather down side up, authoritatively or dictatively, I fear, while I'm still far from being convinced as such.

``If you think your materials are helpful to others, you should make that very clear on your own pages. How else can they be justified to stay?``

To "make that very clear," I am considering the assignment of my pages to a Category, say, the existing Category:1999 or a new Category:1999 bibliography for User:KYPark/1999, a link to which may also be added to See also in the page 1999. Again, my subpages are under construction. Sooner or later, a bot could get such Category and See also jobs done easily in a flash. Please kindly advise me what else I could or should do.

``I thought your subpages were very old as well, but it looks like that was a wrong impression.``

Yeah, you've got a wrong impression indeed!

``However, your user page is about three years old and it has had no edits from other people AFAICT.``

First of all, let me know what AFAICT is? You may be kind enough to make it a hyperlink, if possible. Next, does any user page normally receive "edits from other people"? Then it quite surprises me. Even more surprisingly, should I be responsible or blamed for receiving no such edits?

``From looking at the Robbert Russell (sp?) page I see there's not much common between your page and the Wikipedia article.``

"Robbert Russell" is supposed to be Peter Russell, but what is the next "(sp?)"? Anyway, this subpage by person is a sample complement to the others by year. The former is more consistent and perhaps easier to edit, as well as personal, while the latter is more chronic and easier to move from year to year. Most importantly, all these subpages of mine may help complement and supplement Wikipedia articles, avoiding unnecessary duplication or redundancy as far as possible. Naturally, my subpage *Peter Russell is far informative in a way beyond the state of the article Peter Russell. I wonder if you insist that I have gone too far away, unnecessarily.

``Thus this leads me to believe that you aren't using the pages to help you in editing Wikipedia either... If it doesn't help you, how can the pages be helpful to anyone else..?``

Thus this leads me to believe that you aren't using the pages to help you in editing Wikipedia either -- your argument against them. --KYPark (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dichotomies

I see you have added many pages to Category:Dichotomies. Is there a policy or discussion to explain this? I have checked the following articles and believe that the category is not appropriate, and so have removed it. I'll look to see if you want to reply here, but possibly you might want to take (say) the first article and comment on its talk page as to why you think the category is appropriate. Links follow. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coevolution • Creation–evolution controversy • Even and odd functions • Genotype-phenotype distinction • Unweaving the Rainbow

See my reply at Category talk:Dichotomies#What is dichotomy anyway?--KYPark (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied, and have started a discussion on another category; please see: Category talk:Cognitive science literature Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New encyclopedism

Hi Kyung-Youn. I've put the category New encyclopedism under the category Encyclopedias. However, I have some concerns about the formal admissibility of New encyclopedism as a category: is it "original research" or are there sources about that co-called new encyclopedism? If there are sources, I think we should start a New encyclopedism article. If not, we have a problem... --Robert Daoust (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See: User talk:Robert Daoust#Category:New encyclopedism --KYPark (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. It seems that the most promising sources for legitimating the article New encyclopedism, newly created by user Cybercobra, can be found in Google under 'new encyclopaedism'. The following two links will perhaps be of interest for you: http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs/knowrep.php, and http://www.smithsrisca.demon.co.uk/PSYsmith1991.html. --Robert Daoust (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond diagram

See: Talk:Diamond model#Another diamond diagram --KYPark (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Ref-id2

A tag has been placed on Template:Ref-id2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. RL0919 (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Ref-id

A tag has been placed on Template:Ref-id requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. RL0919 (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your book (1971)

I moved a book that you created into your userspace (at User:KYPark/Books/1971) since I could not really say what you wanted to created with that book. The content and title didn't seem to match. Feel free to keep on working on your book (consider giving it a better title too). If you don't want it anymore (or if it was a "test"), just place {{db-u1}} at the top of the page.

If you have questions about books, see Help:Books, or you can also contact me on my talk page. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:New encyclopedism

Category:New encyclopedism, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My responses:
1. My edit added, New encyclopedism#The gist.
2. My comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 23#Category:New encyclopedism. --KYPark (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Brain

Hi. I went to the H.G.Wells festival, but infortunately nothing about the world brain. Maybe next year?Harrypotter (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to be such a fan of HG Wells as to go to his festival. Thanks a lot for your link to it. As a result, I link you again to the Talk. As far as Tories manages his festival, there would appear no World Brain there, I fear. --KYPark (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:World-Brain-106.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:World-Brain-106.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds such a strange case that (s)he who has declared the image "non-free" now reminds me of the very dubious fix. The Wellsian spirit is such that all the best human knowledge need be made available and free for all humans to solve the world problems, hence the very spirit of the worldwide free wiki encyclopedia. For Wikipedia to delete the historical symbol and monument of such an ideal is to break with such a humanist spirit at the cost of denying itself, I fear. For what? It should be kept alive by all means. --KYPark (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Show-head

Template:Show-head has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:World-Brain-106.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:World-Brain-106.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly fear that the article World Brain has been left constantly openly vandalized. It may be so fated so hated here. I have no idea how to help with this hopelessly god-dammed stuff more than waste of time. --KYPark (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in philosophy

Hi KYPark, I believe you single-handedly started the List of years in philosophy back then in 2007. Thanks a lot for your contributions. My goal is to finish the 1900s section. Did you use any programs to compile the list? Anthrophilos (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. Nice to meet you who appreciate my little work. --KYPark (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry

Hi KYPark! Nice poetry at Talk:Universal grammar#Simplism. I'm struggling to see what it has to do with the actual article though... perhaps an attempt to rewrite the whole article in verse? ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using poetry, we used to make a long story short. Indeed it should be very long and complicated. It seems to remain a point of crash between two deep-rooted camps, rationalist and empiricist. I am mostly empiricist. But I dislike UG favoring AI, the camp of which has made the historical cognitive (scientific) revolution and cognitive (revolutionary) science to be the success of AI, which is simply untrue, too ahistorical!

The cognitive revolution and science emerged and evolved in the late 1970s, I am very sure. But a AI camp pushed back to the 1956 Dartmouth Conference where "AI" was approved, and a UG camp back to the 1959 Chomsky's review of behaviorist Skinner's Verbal Behavior (1957).

Simply, both AI and UG are essentially dehumanizing to do without the human brain situated and conditioned in complex context, psychological and environmental. A huge obscurantism, I fear! --KYPark (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Why isn't this live?

Rrrleibow (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, KYPark. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, KYPark. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nav-cat-20c-books

Template:Nav-cat-20c-books has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]