Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:009o9/Archive 4) (bot |
→Edit war warning: new section |
||
Line 228: | Line 228: | ||
::On the draft article, I'm restoring some of the stuff that she pruned, a new infobox, an award and a merger paragraph that has been sitting around since October. Somebody did some pruning on the live article, nothing serious, but I should update the draft. [[User:009o9|009o9]]<sup>[[User:009o9|Disclosure]]</sup>[[User talk:009o9|(Talk)]] 10:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
::On the draft article, I'm restoring some of the stuff that she pruned, a new infobox, an award and a merger paragraph that has been sitting around since October. Somebody did some pruning on the live article, nothing serious, but I should update the draft. [[User:009o9|009o9]]<sup>[[User:009o9|Disclosure]]</sup>[[User talk:009o9|(Talk)]] 10:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
::Upon review, I don't agree with the pruning of the WSJ reference and technical verbiage belongs in a technical article. I don't remember why it was there, but the removal is a subjective drive by. [[User:009o9|009o9]]<sup>[[User:009o9|Disclosure]]</sup>[[User talk:009o9|(Talk)]] 10:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
::Upon review, I don't agree with the pruning of the WSJ reference and technical verbiage belongs in a technical article. I don't remember why it was there, but the removal is a subjective drive by. [[User:009o9|009o9]]<sup>[[User:009o9|Disclosure]]</sup>[[User talk:009o9|(Talk)]] 10:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Edit war warning == |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Digipas Usa]]. Users are expected to [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building in talk pages|collaborate]] with others, to avoid editing [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptively]], and to [[Wikipedia:Consensus|try to reach a consensus]] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> |
|||
Please be particularly aware that [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|Wikipedia's policy on edit warring]] states: |
|||
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''. |
|||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' |
|||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 08:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:15, 11 May 2016
Template:Archive box collapsible
March 9 edit-a-thon at MOCA in downtown LA
LA Meetup: March 9 edit-a-thon at MOCA | |
---|---|
Dear fellow Wikipedian, You have been invited to a meetup and edit-a-thon at the Museum of Contemporary Art in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday, March 9, 2014 from 11 am to 6 pm! This event is in collaboration with MOCA and the arts collective East of Borneo and aims to improve coverage of LA art since the 1980s. (Even if contemporary art isn't your thing, you're welcome to join too!) Please RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! User:Calliopejen1 (talk) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list. |
Notice
BNY Mellon
Thanks again for your help with The Bank of New York Mellon article. I appreciate you making those edits even though our thoughts on who should make them differ. There's actually one last item to be done, if it isn't too much. I responded on the Talk page here and wanted to make sure saw it. I totally understand if you're not interested though. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Heatherer Hey, can I get a favor? Does this article deserve multiple perpetual POV hats? You'll have to expand the Multiple issues hat to see them. There are individual sections that the tagging editor has not responded to on the Talk page if you want to weigh in there. Anthony Marinelli (This is one of my paid articles.)
- Sorry I missed this notification somehow. It looks like this got resolved, but is there anything else I can do to help? I'm more than happy to take a look. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Heatherer Thank you, another editor went above and beyond my request for a talk page opinion and gave the article a thorough redline. My contention is that with an active editor, discussions belong on the talk page and inline tags are much more helpful. Thanks again! 009o9 (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed this notification somehow. It looks like this got resolved, but is there anything else I can do to help? I'm more than happy to take a look. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi again! I just wanted to let you know that I posted a few new updates for the BNY Mellon article on the Talk page. I waited to see if any editors who had the page watchlisted might respond, but no luck. You'd mentioned before that I could reach out about small updates, so...here I am! If you have time to look the edits over, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikiclaus' cheer !
Wikiclaus greetings | ||
|
February 2016
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give War of Resistance (film) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Diannaa, I completely forgot about the article history, there was no talk page discussion and the redirect template seemed to handle that. I have, in the past, created some articles C&P, but I haven't made a move like this, prior to this one. Another editor grabbed some old unfinished content from my user space and pasted/moved? into War of Resistance (film). Although it did get me off the fence, I wasn't real happy about having to spend the time fixing defects in my half-finished draft at a moment's notice. While I was burning the time, I went ahead changed the redirect CP and some inter-wiki links for completeness. Thank you for handling the history merge, going forward, I'll use the Move tool when there is a history involved. 009o9 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Never Gonna Be the Same Again (March 6)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Never Gonna Be the Same Again and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Hello! 009o9,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! RadioFan (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Wik-Ed Women Session #5
Wik-Ed Women Session #5 | |
---|---|
Dear fellow Wikipedian, I would like to personally invite you to the March edition of the Wik-Ed Women meetup, which will take place on March 15, from 6-10 in the evening. It will occur at Los Angeles Contemporary Archive, 2245 E Washington Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90021 (downtown LA -- map). The building has a pink top with old signage for American Accessories, Inc. dba Princess Accessories (Photos [PDF]). There is on-site parking in the back, which also has an entrance. If you cannot attend in person, you are more than willing to work remotely, as we appreciate all help that you can provide. Finally, here is a link to the Facebook event, in case you want to invite friends, as we are always looking for new editors to help expand coverage of women on Wikipedia! I hope to see you there! Cosmicphantom (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list. |
"Record"
You wrote, " It was User:Richhoncho who took a very narrow definition of the word "record" in this discussion. He was reading "record" in the context of a vinyl LP is slang (record album)." I have to say I still say a song is a song and the method of delivery is not the song. If you can't understand that very basic concept... --Richhoncho (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Richhoncho Here is the problem I'm having with your logic, none of the following can occur if the song has not been recorded:
- Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
- Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
- Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.
- (If the Songs section was once about unrecorded songs, it isn't anymore.)
- In addition to the three line-items above, you also cannot get an album review done on unrecorded music, nor release an unrecorded single. Most of the verbiage in NSONGS belongs nested within the Recordings section. There is absolutely no reason why a recorded song should not fall under the same SEVEN line-items in the Recordings section, not the just THREE in NSONGS (which 2 are duplicates anyway).
- Additionally, just because a song does not get released as a single, does not mean that it did not become notable. The way the guideline is currently written, only singles and albums can be notable without charting. There are tons of notable B-Sides that never got radio spins that are considered the best cut on the album etc.
- Have a look at what I am doing here: User:009o9/Draft NSONGS RFC If you think we need a section called "Unrecorded songs" let's work on it. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think you are wasting your time and I can find other ways to waste mine. But I will give you a thought or two - The concept of charting is misleading, it means a song that reaches #146 in the nowhere chart is considered "notable" even though there are no RS (other than the chart), no information, and nothing about "the song." A further problem with recordings are those songs created and passed from performer to performer, so although there is no specific recording that is notable, the song most certainly is i.e. much of the blues cannon, folk songs, child ballads etc etc. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @User:Richhoncho: Notability certainly has a property that involves longevity, but Wikipedia also requires that reliable sources attach some significance to the song. I don't think that any amount of massaging the guideline is going to change the fact that nobody is writing about it. Why don't you become the reliable source and write about it yourself?
- Concerning recorded music, which is realistically what we are dealing with here, I don't understand your resistance. The way the Wikipedia is today, you have to establish notability with tons of references to get through AfC. I've seen declines with 30 good references. Sorry if this has been a waste of your time, I use AfC on a regular basis and sometimes get some really oddball AfDs. The project guidelines are so poorly written and disorganized that it is worth my time to try to clean them up, rather than go through the same nonsense in AfC forever. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Don't be an idiot. A song may become notable because of a recording, but it is still the song that is notable. That's why you are wasting time. Goodbye. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think you are wasting your time and I can find other ways to waste mine. But I will give you a thought or two - The concept of charting is misleading, it means a song that reaches #146 in the nowhere chart is considered "notable" even though there are no RS (other than the chart), no information, and nothing about "the song." A further problem with recordings are those songs created and passed from performer to performer, so although there is no specific recording that is notable, the song most certainly is i.e. much of the blues cannon, folk songs, child ballads etc etc. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited H-1B visa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Justice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Postmodern Jukebox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Wendy Newman (April 24)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Wendy Newman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Muzzle Awards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Amherst, Clemson, Northwestern, Emory and Hamilton College
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. I have posted this on WP:COIN so that others can provide their opinion. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 5 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the GoDigital Media Group page, your edit caused a cite error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
PAID policy and COI guideline
hi 009o9, I work on Conflict of Interest issues here in Wikipedia and my attention was called to your work here by the posting at COIN. I've read your User page. You are aware of what PAID and COI say, with regard to disclosure. That's great. You do not seem to be paying to the part of the COI guideline that says:
- You are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles.
- You may propose changes by using the {{request edit}} template on talk pages.
- You may propose changes on the conflict-of-interest noticeboard.
- Your proposals may or may not be acted upon.
- If you are being paid to edit, please respect volunteers by keeping discussions concise; see PAYTALK.
Would you please comment on that? I would be interested in your thoughts. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Yes, I endeavor to follow the guideline at WP:COIADVICE and do very minimal editing in the article space, unfortunately COIADVICE does not address reverting subjective/hostile/uninformed edits, nor WP:STEWARDSHIP. I've added my disclosures to my talk page, my signature and the affected pages, far beyond the Foundation's guidance. Per WP:SOCK I am not allowed to have an alternate account to segregate my paid editing from my volunteer editing, so the prejudice against COI editors often bleeds over to the voluntary side in retribution.
- As for AfD discussions etc., I have an ideology, not a COI, I'm for the inclusion of RS corporate articles. The editor in question, from her history here in COIN, appears to be against corporate articles. I feel I have no COI in these matters, unless you want to start silencing (one side of) political ideologies within administrative discussions too.
- I did a search the other day to see who is using the PAID template, there are three of us using it on more than one article. All of the others appear to be single use accounts. (So the implementation of the Foundation's new policy has been a complete failure here IMHO.) I had a friend who was blackhat editing, I could not convince him to go brightline, and at this point, it is hard to blame him. Regardless of my voluntary works, it's a lot like being a second-class citizen and then being told limit your responses to the condition. Regards 009o9Disclosure(Talk)
- It can be rough to be on the "bright side" and I appreciate you making that choice. Ultimately what paid editors do here, comes down to if they want to feel sneaky and see how much they can get away, or be open and see how much crap they can put up with. Personal ethics, really.
- fwiw having a chip on your shoulder that the policy sucks doesn't much help you but that is of course your decision to broadcast that. I find that in business the less drama, the better. Same thing with my editing here.
- To be clear the idea of not editing directly is so that there is peer review to check for bias. It's how most publishing works - where you have a publisher, editor, and for academic stuff actual peer review between the author and publication or their work. Here in WP editing is unmediated - no publisher or editor or peer review between a conflicted editor and the article. So we ask conflicted editors to submit to peer review. Hard for the ego, for sure, and makes getting paid less efficient, for sure. But protects the integrity of Wikipedia, the reputation of the client, and the reputation of the editor. I have been working with a few paid editors to improve their proposals so that their proposals can be implemented swiftly. Takes time for people to understand what actually good Wikipedia editing is, which is not like any other kind of writing I am aware of.
- About the classes of direct editing you identify. Direct STEWARDSHIP is not an option for paid editors on articles they are paid to work on. Reverting vandalism (actual vandalism) is fine of course. Ditto noncontroversial (broadly defined) factual changes - simple stuff like changing a company's address when they move - is fine too. I hope you are not going past those two kinds of direct editing on articles where you are paid.
- some data.
- So.. here are your contribs to the GoDigital Media Group; you have 132 edits to that article; the next highest is Lemongirl with 16 and she just arrived there.
- here are your edits to GoDigital; in edit count, that article is dominated by two editors who clearly worked for/were paid by them, Heisenberg123 and Michigangurl123 who I reckon are the same person. You are third, right behind them.
- This is not where articles should be if folks are following the COI guideline.
- Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog:Yes, it is a bit frustrating, but if I back down all the time, I will be legislated out of existence. I understand the writing process, proposal writing and tech manuals. Knowing some non combative reviewers would be great. The paid "stigma" comes from a just a few editors, but that stigma also eliminates the possibility of getting an article review or edit request granted, especially by other paid editors. Basically, that leaves AfC and absolutely nothing for edit requests.
- Raw data aside, most of those edits to GoDigital Media Group, are from when the article was in my userspace, it was originally ContentBridge, which was then an AfD merge to the parent GoDigital Media Group. Since the merge, the article has always been an ill-fit. I was hired to do ContentBridge and the project quickly exploded into various other entities. For the separate GoDigital article and a few others, I think I was using edit summaries to declare (Foundation guidance) as the Wikipedia guidance had not been written yet.
- What do you think of my proposal for the GDMG article User:009o9/Draft GDMG, the infoboxes are really helpful for those non-controversial edits that you and I agree are fine. What's her name has virtually no article creation history, so virtually everything to her appears to be advertising. Certainly nothing that falls within the "When to use" guidance on Template:Advert. Cheers 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 09:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to look at your proposal in a bit but I try not to mix content discussions with COI management discussions as it gets too messy. When we are done, sure.
- I do understand that the not-editing-directly mode is very inefficient, but that's the deal here; those are the rules of the game you have sat down to play. If you want to wear the white hat you have to go all the way. I am very aware that directly editing gets your client pleased quicker and of course gets you paid quicker but that the direct editing itself creates more friction and harms your reputation here long term... if you can't be trusted to follow the guideline then folks get suspicious and want to follow you around to check; it becomes a nasty feedback loop. Do you see that? Jytdog (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's one of the problems with Project guidance, it is not our duty to inform other editors that the page contains COI writing, it is our duty to inform the reader. The guidance does nothing in that regard. I have a much more effective way to deal with that here User:009o9#Coexistence_proposal. I did propose during the Foundation discussions, I guess is never got legs because it doesn't punish the editor enough.
- I was in the middle of filling out an ANI complaint on Lemongirl942 for stalking, I guess I'll just revert that second instance and take it up in the morning. Nice chatting with you. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 09:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Like I said, i don't know that it behooves you to chafe at the bit; if you were rock solid in compliance you would have more solid ground but it is pretty clear that you been coloring outside the lines. I don't think drama helps you. And fwiw, the real peer review comes from other editors; our goal is to present readers with NPOV content and COI management "within house" is our means to do that. So most of the tagging is directed to other editors by intent. We only deploy the article COI tag if we can't persuade people to comply with the COI guideline and the article is so biased and influenced by conflicted editing that we need to warn readers.
- Speaking of avoiding drama, good to hear that you decided to not file the ANI complaint; I don't reckon that would be good for anyone.
- It is not clear to me where this discussion stands. Do you intend to not edit directly going forward? I am looking for that assurance. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've been coloring since before there were lines, so that needs to be taken into consideration. Your question is too broad, "Do you intend to not edit directly going forward?" Especially if you are here is some sort of administrative capacity. Would you please restate it? 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 10:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- The rules of the game change as one goes. Do you intend to not edit directly going forward on content you are paid to work on? That is the question. (of course where you are a volunteer it is a different story) Jytdog (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- To include the guidance per WP:COIADVICE, which we both understand is dynamic, Yes, to that question. Thanks for restating, there's a lot of reading comprehension problems around here and I don't want to get bitten later. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 10:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- The rules of the game change as one goes. Do you intend to not edit directly going forward on content you are paid to work on? That is the question. (of course where you are a volunteer it is a different story) Jytdog (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've been coloring since before there were lines, so that needs to be taken into consideration. Your question is too broad, "Do you intend to not edit directly going forward?" Especially if you are here is some sort of administrative capacity. Would you please restate it? 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 10:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Great thanks for answering. A last thing. Lemongirl followed you, so you decided to follow her. I hope you both knock that off; that ANI would have boomeranged on you even if you did bring her down. Drama helps nobody.
Now about your draft article. You are rewriting the existing GoDigital Media Group article I take it? Jytdog (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Believe me, I was tempted to Prod a couple of her articles but resisted. The AfD thing really was a fluke, I thought the Twinkle red Vandalism link meant that she had reported an edit as vandalism, I clicked one to see why. I never acted on anything she has in article space from her edit list. AfC and AfD on the other hand is fair game, but I refrain from declines and deletes considering my COI -- I.e., the appearance of creating more demand by declining/deleting.
- On the draft article, I'm restoring some of the stuff that she pruned, a new infobox, an award and a merger paragraph that has been sitting around since October. Somebody did some pruning on the live article, nothing serious, but I should update the draft. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 10:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Upon review, I don't agree with the pruning of the WSJ reference and technical verbiage belongs in a technical article. I don't remember why it was there, but the removal is a subjective drive by. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 10:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Edit war warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Digipas Usa. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)