User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Uploaded files

Hello, you said yesterday that you were interested in Catholicism. Well, I am very interested too, and I have just uploaded these files, but I'm not sure where to put them. Could you also show me some articles about Catholicism that would need work? Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I mainly do early modern Catholic history (conclaves in particular are my thing on Wikipedia). Gerda Arendt does a lot of work with German hymns and is one of our most prolific music contributors. She’d probably be able to give better advice than me on this topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @L293D: The first two of those files already have articles, so they're the obvious choice—and would benefit from their addition; and, having three other files with no articles means...they have to be written! Excellent results all round-Go for it! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates}

Do you think they would be notable enough? L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really know; I've tried to avoid them since they were the scourge of my schooldays  :) but, tbh, I don't really see why some (like the ones we already have) would be, and these not. Especially the old Victorian ones, as they have their own historical tradition. A good way of finding out, L293D, is to do a Google search—but narrow it down to Googlebooks. That way, you omit the cruft, as it were. Like this, for example. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me, - perhaps The C of E knows more about English hymns, even if not Catholic. You can search within Wikipedia for these titles, which may appear in lists of songs, or as some lyricist's work, where a sound file would also be good. A Protestant German example of how to include it is "Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Holy, Holy, Holy and Lift High the Cross already have their own pages. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Any help around Psalm 84 - hymns based on it, place in liturgy etc - welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• ​E.g.:

1. Psalms (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series)—Broyles, C. G.
2. Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible—Dunn, J. D. G. & Rogerson, J. W.
3. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel—Smith, M. S.
4. Studies in the History of Religions—Layton, B.
5. In the Shadow of History: Jews and Conversos at the Dawn of Modernity—Faur, J.
6. A History of Baroque Music—Buelow, G. J
7. Biblical Narrative and Palestine's History: Changing Perspectives 2—Thompson, T. L.
8. Gender Differences and the Making of Liturgical History: Lifting a Veil on Liturgy's Past—Berger, T.
9. A History of Pastoral Care—Evans, G. R.
10. Exploring Psalms: An Expository Commentary, Volume 1—Phillips, J.

and more generally (although most of the above also discuss psalms holistically)

1. Abiding Astonishment: Psalms, Modernity, and the Making of History—Brueggemann, W.
2. The Psalms as Christian Worship: An Historical Commentary—Waltke, B. K., Houston J. M. & Moore, E.
3. Encountering the Book of Psalms: A Literary and Theological Introduction—Bullock, C. H.
4. The Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary—Eaton, J. H.
5. Psalms—Mays, J. L.
6. The Oxford Handbook of the Psalms—Brown, W. P.

Etc.

Apologies to TB for the mild breach of WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY on his page... ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! You could place it on the talk of Psalm 84 ;) - Will get to it later, - protest song mood today, - see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrol Right - Article I didnt create

H TonyBallioni, I have requested Autopatrol right about 3 months ago - see here [1] - The two articles actually pass the WP:GNG but failed the WP:NMMA. Since then (since July 2017) I have created 55 published articles. The one named శ్రీ వెలుగొండ వేంకటేశ్వర స్వామి (on item 6 on the list) [2] was NOT created by me. I CSD the article and somehow user RHaworth deleting while my edit still open and I didnt notice it and made the edit and for such it appear on my creation log - see the conversation here User talk:RHaworth#శ్రీ వెలుగొండ వేంకటేశ్వర స్వామి. I requested RHaworth to delete it and was told some how it could not. I would like to request for autopatrol and now it will hamper the right since this occur. I DIDNT crate the article, and who like to (1) request the name page to be deleted from my creation log and (2) I would like to request autopatrol and how this would effect me (if I request now at the request site) and I will be surely denied. kindly assist and thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, CASSIOPEIA, if you think you meet the requirements for autopatrolled, you should apply at WP:PERM. I haven't reviewed your most recent contributions, and I think it is typically better for a different admin to look at it the second time someone applies for something. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Really?

You're going to arbitration even before reaching out to me on my talk page? Thanks. Much appreciated. Terrific example of how to address disagreements. --В²C ☎ 17:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but given the above thread on this page and the threads on the other pages, I felt it would likely have just generated more heat than light. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It's okay, you're acting out of frustration. I get that. But nobody is required to participate in the discussions, and nothing substantive can happen unless there is actual consensus for it, so where is the disruption? What's the problem with people willingly discussing issues they choose to discuss and debate? --В²C ☎ 18:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

question!

Hi Tony! I saw your decision at NPP! It's alright, the only practical implication is that unfortunately the backlog will continue to grow. You cited the 90-day rule as the reason. Seems somehow arbitrary, but it's fine. Have you looked at my contributions? Is there anything else that I need to be aware of? You can reply here, I've added this to my watchlist. Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The backlog has stayed relatively stable since the end of January. Because NPP often deals with new users, we typically don't want users who are new themselves and unfamiliar with the way we handle new content reviewing articles and potentially giving incorrect information or getting overzealous and WP:BITEing the even newer users. I didn't do that thorough a review of your contributions because the 90 day limit isn't really something we fudge (and if we did, it wouldn't be with less than two months of experience). I don't see anything glaring in your contribs that sticks out. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain! I'm the least bitey person in the world, in fact I have a personal note about that at the top of my talk page :) I understand the importance of NPOV and proper sources, and I hate seeing spam in Wikipedia. Out of the 400+ articles I've created, all the ones that aren't dab pages are properly and very carefully sourced. But anyway, thank you for explaining, I don't want to take any more of your time if you reckon the 90-day rule isn't just a tentative guideline... Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not just a tentative guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, no worries.

I must admit I don't really see why it isn't, but I understand that people with far more experience than me are in a better position to judge.

Personally, I feel each case should be looked at individually, as opposed to applying a blanket rule. But I realise that looking at each case in depth could potentially be extremely time-consuming and thus impractical. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Each case is looked at individually. You have approximately half the required experience. (50 vs. 90 days). If someone with 87 days came, I'd take a serious look, but 50 days simply isn't enough to learn the practices and conventions of the English Wikipedia in a way to be able to competently explain it to new users and also learn how we apply it in AfDs and other venues. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Some people learn faster than others :) Please have a look when you're not too busy if I haven't annoyed you too much already haha :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but my decision is final. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Where to go?

We seem to have come to an impasse at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#History. And a request to reopen a discussion of religious pre- and post-nominals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines/Archive 2#Pre-nominals and post-nominals was ignored and archived. The former is important since it includes such simple things as including distinctive extracurriculars such as service programs and retreats in an article. The latter is important since it involves hundreds of articles and my attempts to restore these are presently being reverted. I will take all the time necessary to get this done but I need help from an experienced editor on how to proceed. Can you advise me where to take these issues, or can you refer me to another editor interested in these Catholicism issues, who can advise me on the best way to go? Grateful for any help in this, Jzsj (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj, posting a neutral question for feedback at WT:CATHOLIC might be best. I mainly do early modern Catholic history, and while I'm very supportive of increasing coverage of schools here, it isn't really an area I edit that heavily in. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've posted several notices there, and some have responded but been shouted down. It's the next step in the process that I need to learn, to avoid an edit war as I proceed. Can you recommend someone who knows the best way to proceed in a dispute like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj, if you aren't achieving consensus, the best thing to do would probably be to let the matter lie and abide by the consensus for now, and possibly test it again later (read, 3-6 months) if you think the discussion turned out incorrectly and that there are reasons for a new RfC. Continuing to press the issue tires people. There are plenty of things on Wikipedia I don't agree with (I think we should have a more objective inclusion criteria rather than a coverage based one, for example), but I typically don't press these things unless I know there is a good chance of achieving change. I haven't been following this too closely, but it seems that you've had a lot of conversations recently, and none of them have gone the way you wanted. It's fine for you to disagree with the outcome, but it is usually best to stop fighting it at some point and work on something else. You can always revisit the conversation later. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been creating Catholic school articles (19) while waiting for a resolution. With no resolution in sight I'll take more time, but I can't abandon this because it could affect all articles on Catholic schools (and we Jesuits alone have 587 of them!) Jzsj (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj: don't think of it as abandoning it. Think of it as making a prudential judgement that your time is best spent elsewhere for the time, and that you can do better work and do more work in other areas if you let this lie for now. Manual of Style issues can be some of the most contentious, and people tire of them very, very, quickly. Round back around to it later after you've done more work in other areas if you still feel it is important. :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement to "stay the patience" course. Jzsj (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be that Jzsj still thinks that readding some plain advertising is the way to go forward. That is true, but going forward in a totally wrong direction: WP:AN/I for a topic ban. The Banner talk 15:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for autopatrolled

Hey,

I have requested for autopatrolled four days ago. Vanamonde used what I perceived as a misconception about tennis career statistics (the only "type" of articles of my focus for the past 2 years) as the reason of "not done" which I clarified in a later comment. He has not responded to me since even after I pinged his name. If you have a few minutes of spare time at hand would you mind checking out my case and give me your opinion on it? Because my contributions only focuses on one area it wouldn't take longer than that to check. Thanks! Fresternoch (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I would recommend talking to him on his talk page. I don’t take admin actions that other admins gave actively declined to make as a rule. Sorry I can’t be of more help. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, though just wanted to clarify I only asked for your opinion on the matter without any additional administrative actions. Would it be too much to ask for you to give me that? Fresternoch (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Fresternoch: I think I would recommend talking to him on his talk page probably constitues sound advice. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The integer above is correct. The best thing to do is to talk to Vanamonde. You might not have intended it, but this comes off a bit as adminshopping, which I try to avoid when at all possible. The best thing to do is talk to Vanamonde93. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Didn't know it borderlines adminshopping as all I wanted was a neutral opinion on the issue. Ok, I'll try to contact Vanamonde on talk page. Fresternoch (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, could you make my rollback right permanent? Its expiring tomorrow. Thanks, L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Tony suggested just going back to WP:PERM/R to be reassessed, but I've gone ahead and made it permanent, it's been used well enough. L293D, please remember that rollback is only to be used for obvious vandalism, and make sure to check the entire diff as well as the edits before it, especially if from the same editor. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

More mottainai copyvio

Hey, I don't think I have the source, but the relevant text was quoted on the talk page and IMO it's much too close. Everything between here and here will have to go.

There's a talk discussion as to whether a paraphrase would even be useful; it technically misrepresents the source, as it was apparently lifted from a single paragraph (on the second page of the article, just outside the free preview range) but pretends to cite a 21-page section of the journal.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Messaging you again as it seems likely you logged in, saw a new messages notification, and only noticed the most recent one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, saw this. I'll look at it in a bit (probably tomorrow). Been pulled in a bunch of different directions here today, and need now RL stuff calls. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User still refusing to listen

This definitely doesn't look good. The editor appears to think I was just using copyright as a cheap trick to "win" a content dispute, and now that he has "surrendered" is acting as though I am "gloating" at having "won". He seems completely incapable or unwilling to accept that his edits might have actually constituted copyright violation.

I did a bit more sleuthing and the editor's other articles cited to English-language sources seem to be largely copy-vio; like Dream Focus, their edits are mostly gnomish and don't add significant amounts of prose, so searching for those that do is not easy:

• James Hamilton (1819–1878) is almost entirely copy-vio,
• as is the text Margin added to Heartwood Forest;
• Book-to-bill ratio contained some close paraphrasing, but most of it is based on charts and lists that Margin converted to prose, apparently in his own words;
• his edits to Jōshin'etsu region are an accurate reflection of the content of a sub-optimal Japanese-language blog, but at least there's no plagiarism;
• Nicola Alexandrovich Benois closely paraphrases two of its online sources here and here, accounting for virtually an entire section of the article;
• the final sentence of Matsura Takanobu (1592–1637) (the only sourced one) is lifted right out of this book (some of the source's words were pruned, but none added or changed);
• I couldn't find any copyvio in The Nimmo Brothers, but my eyes glazed over when I looked at the sources, which do not seem to fully verify the content attributed to them, and are all primary sources anyway -- and I can only assume the reason there is no copyvio is that he just translated the de.wiki article, as Google Translate's rendition of that article would be identical to ours with some copy-editing.

Based on the above, I'd say the editor has a Japanese level similar to my own or Curly Turkey's, and when he translates from Japanese sources he seems to do so accurately, but becomes lazy when using English sources. The exception is when he expands content from lists of data into original prose. But the above sample is hardly comprehensive; the editor has almost 8,000 mainspace edits.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll look at this tomorrow or Monday. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not asking for rev-del (yet). I thought it was too much work to figure out exactly which parts needed to go and whether it would be worth keeping properly paraphrased versions anyway, and wouldn't ask you to do that work. It's a user-conduct, WP:IDHT issue, and I'm asking you to talk to him since apparently he wants nothing more to do with me, but he can't be allowed continue to do what he has been. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I had a hellish week in real life, which prevented me from poking you on this. In the mean time, he has responded by basically blanking all the text I pointed out was copyvio (with the euphemistic edit summary "avoid words that appear in the source"), and in the case of Hamilton had the article speedy-deleted under G7, where the more appropriate criterion would be G12.

This all really comes across as him trying to cover his tracks, since he still hasn't actually acknowledged anywhere that what he did was copyvio and that he was wrong to treat the copyright tagging as a "cheap trick" to win a content dispute. It also means the Hamilton article shouldn't have been deleted under G7 (and now has a flaw in its deletion log), since the speedy-nominating wasn't apparently done "in good faith" per the wording of G7.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe you are claiming close paraphrase, which is explicitly excluded from G12 criteria. But since seem to want a public admission, maybe you could allow me to explain a few things? A long time ago, probably before you were born, when I was an English major in college, we were taught something called close reading. One exercise was to take a poem and see what happens when you replace a word with a synonym. Usually the result is a different poem. I still believe that – that the same thought in different words is a different thought. So whenever possible I try to respect the author's words. It's not that I'm "lazy". I'm a professional editor and spend all day helping authors find words for their thoughts. But the thoughts are theirs, not mine. When I attribute a thought to an author, I feel an obligation to respect their expression of it.

So that's the story. I realize now that this may have put me at odds with the basic assumption behind Wikipedia's paraphrasing policy. I had never read the policy, to tell the truth. I thought my paraphrases were acceptable, but apparently I didn't go far enough because they still contained words used by authors. I'm evaluating now what I should do in the future. It will probably be some combination of more quote marks, more explicit attribution, shorter sentences, and writing less. For now, since I don't want to fight about it, I blanked the passages.

If you want, you can take this as an admission that yes, some of those sentences were probably close paraphrasing. And sorry to hear that you were having real life issues. So have I, mainly trying to earn enough money to cover my medical expenses so that I don't leave my wife in debt. You're welcome to look through my other posts and point out anything you think is inappropriate. I'll try to get to it if I have time. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Margin1522, thanks for your note and understanding. As a professional editor I’m sure you’re able to understand our the information at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. If there are cases you discover where it needs curing or revdel, you can ping me on the talk page or reach out here. Hijiri88, thanks for staying on top of this. My RL has been interesting of late too. 13:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem was never close paraphrasing so much as entire sentences lifted word-for-word the sources. If I recall (the information is now inaccessible to me), virtually every word of at least two entire sections of the Hamilton article was copied from the sources, and that definitely would have been covered under G12. Margin, on the mottainai talk page you claimed that your having only copied a line or two rather than an entire paragraph made what you did "paraphrasing", and you seem to be still making the same claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you tagged it as close paraphrase. If you want G12, there's probably some avenue you could pursue.

About the passage from Mottainai, you didn't mention a few mitigating factors – that the final version quoted a salient phrase (even though it wasn't especially original), with an inline attribution by name, a short explanation of who the author is, and even a link to an interview in which she discussed the source. There was never any intention to pass off her words as mine or as Wikipedia's, and little chance that anyone would read it that way. As Tony suggested, I did read our guideline on plagiarism. It seems to me that Mottainai was doing everything right, except possibly "properly paraphrased", if that means "use different words". But our "text properly paraphrased" example has its own problems. It replaces a precise word (transitions) with a vague one (change), and appears to get the author's meaning wrong. The text is from a book called Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict. The immediate context is here. It describes various kinds of conflict within states, such as ethnic conflict, repression of minorities, and power struggles among elites, and says "Political transitions brought about by the collapse of authoritarian rule, democratization, or political reforms also make states particularly prone to violence." Our paraphrase of that is "can provoke violence against the state". How did violence within the state become violence against the state? The Harvard guideline where we got this example didn't have this problem. If you let me off the hook, maybe we could work on the Talk page to get this fixed. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If "pass[ing] off her words as mine or as Wikipedia's" is not your intention, then in the future please use quotation marks. There was of course plenty of "chance that someone would read it that way" as I did read it that way until I read through Curly Turkey's direct quotation of the source more carefully and noticed that every single word you used came directly from the source. Literally every other article I checked where you added a significant amount of prose had the same problem, except where you translated from a foreign-language source.

If we don't understand what a source means by "transitions" enough to be able to determine whether "change" would alter its meaning significantly, then we shouldn't be citing that source without double-checking it against a clearer source. I honestly don't know enough about the topic to say definitively whether I agree with you or not.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I will do that. And sorry, but it looks like I was wrong above. Following the footnotes to our base text shows that it was citing a study of democratization which held that new democracies are more likely go to war against their neighbors than countries that have not experienced regime change. So that's what "prone to violence" meant, directly. When I get the time I think I will suggest a tweak to our examples to take that into account. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

InDriver

Could you check this out for me please. It's almost a verbatim copy of the spam I deleted a while back. Same author. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I took a look and I nominated it for deletion. See here. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: COI advantages at AfC

Hi TonyBallioni, you recently wrote at VPP that I'll save you my rant on the issues that are involved with AfC and COI (tl;dr, it is a system that has structural advantages to being a COI editor rather than a non-COI editor.). This is a topic I'm curious about, since I routinely refer COI editors on IRC to AfC, and I'd love to get your perspective on it. Could you help me understand why AfC is an area COI editors have advantages over non-COI editors in? AfC seems to me to be equally frustrating for COI and non-COI editors to use. (Perhaps you have already explained this somewhere else and could link it for me?) Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, Kevin. So, first off, I'll say how much respect I have for the people who regularly work AfC: it's a tough job and they do a lot of good work. My issues with the process have to do with how the structure tends to advantage COI editors over non-conflicted contributors. It's important to remember that AfC was originally created to let good faith IPs create articles, and later moved to working to help good faith new editors, and now has become the designated place for COI editors to create articles (which is better than them creating it in mainspace, I'll agree in general).

The structural issue here is that the system is designed thinking of the good faith non-conflicted editor, and is designed to help them get articles into Wikipedia: it is supposed to encourage direct interaction between new editors and established editors to help them get articles we want into Wikipedia. The problem arises in how rejections are handled: if you are a new editor who is writing about a notable historical figure who has been convered in academic sourcing and books, and you write an article with crap formatting and offline references, odds are that the article is going to be rejected at AfC and you will be given a template that doesn't apply to your situation, and when you ask for help, you'll be quoted WP:42, and sent on your merry way. You will likely quit because it is absolutely infuriating to have your article on a notable 19th-century mechanical engineer rejected by a 17-year-old Pokémon fan six weeks later because the formatting was a bit wonky, and you don't particularly feel like having a talk page conversation with someone who has no clue about the subject are using a weird markup that you've never user before so you just give up and go back to your other hobby of fly-fishing.

Switch to the COI/PAID/spammer editor. They have a financial or emotional incentive to keep asking questions and getting feedback. They will often latch on to the same reviewer, who typically will give them general answers (see again, WP:42) and they keep coming back with sources until the draft looks much better than it did before, so it gets accepted. NPP likely ignores it because it's been accepted by AfC, so it must be good, and on the off chance it goes to AfD, it is guaranteed at least two keep !votes, one of whom being the no-longer-actually-independent AfC reviewer showing up to defend their accept (but treated independent by the closer. All the while it is actually a native advertising piece with nicely formatted crap sourcing (that AfD didn't go through the back and forth with a reviewer bit, but it's the most recent AfC AfD I was a part of, and I put a lot of work into explaining the issues with that article.)

In terms of what can be done? I'm not sure. I advocate for doing BEFORE when someone asks for help and not giving them general answers, but actually telling them one way or another whether or not the draft has any chance of being part of Wikipedia. Most of the time in COI cases the answer is no, and we're not doing anyone any favours by saying "All you have to do is find more sourcing!" Lest anyone think that I'm entirely opposed to COI editors using AfC, no, I'm not: I brought George Baldanzi to DYK and basically wrote the article entirely myself after the nephew of the subject created it as a one-line stub in AfC. AfC does have a place in the COI process, but the current system is skewed to the benefit of COI editors over non-COI editors. I'm not sure if there is an easily implementable solution other than not leading people along on unacceptable drafts, but I'll raise the issue for general consideration. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. I think the phenomenon of Wikipedians becoming jaded after doing something for a while is one of our biggest problems. AfC reviewers start rejecting drafts as quickly as possible on the flimsiest of reasons to reduce the backlog (yes, because the formatting was a bit wonky); IRC helpers say the snippiest policy-compliant non-response response to get the annoying helpee off their plate; NPPers clearly-inappropriately CSD articles because they don't want to spend energy writing up an AfD. I've worked all of those areas in the past, each pretty intensely for at least a month. For me, clerking for ArbCom has been less frustrating than remaining perfectly patient as I explain GNG to the 15th IRC uncooperative COI helpee that day, as I review the 260th AfC with bland sources and terrible formatting, as I provide feedback to the eleventy-millionth editor whose article is probably going to be deleted at AfD no matter what (pre-ACTRIAL).

I recently revisited each of these areas – reviewed a few AfCs, did a bit of NPPing, spent a few days answering #wikipedia-en-help. I wrote personalized, 700-character AfC comments, actually investigated the history of NPP articles instead of doing a cursory review and tag-bomb, and personally edited IRC helpees' userpages to help them declare COIs. I also noticed when others could've been more thorough, more careful, more understanding, less BITEy. But I also recognized that had I done this for another month, there was no way I could've managed to stay as helpful or cheerful as I was in my first AfC/NPP/IRC work in a year.

And that's the broader problem with all of our new editor-facing processes, not just AfC. I mean, we're a thousand experienced uncoordinated volunteers, tops (on any given day, at least), handling the entirety of the public-facing maintenance of a top-5 website. How do we even try to make that more friendly? Most stranger-to-stranger interactions only work because at least one party is getting paid. Think customer support at call centers – you think the staff would stay if they were asked to volunteer? Here, the support staff isn't getting paid – so pretty much the only people who can handle the unpleasant interaction are those who have outside incentives to keep at it.

This is why it frustrates me a bit when content creators on this site look down upon WikiGnomes and maintenance work. I mean, speaking firsthand, writing articles is so, so much more pleasant than painstakingly explaining over 20 minutes to someone on IRC why their non-notable company does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. I get to freely edit six million articles because others keep an eye out for spam and vandalism – why should I then regard them with contempt, as the community seems to do sometimes?

I see that I got on a bit of a soapbox above. I also have little idea what to actually do about any of this. I mean, it's a miracle any of this works in the first place. Perhaps we could encourage people to rotate between different areas of maintenance work to prevent getting quite as jaded and losing the big picture? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Much of my experience matches with Kevin's and the idea of rotation is quite nice:) I was once heavily active in AFC followed by NPP and other maintenance areas but after a month or so, one definitely starts getting jaded-out.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)@Tony:--

Whilst I agree with most of your observations, I guess All the while it is actually a native advertising piece with nicely formatted crap sourcing is a bit of over-generalization.AFC manages to screen off a quite mountainesque amount of paid-spam/rubbish, which is written/formatted way-too nicely.

And, I think that these bad accepts are mostly from new AFCReviewers in the sphere of corp-articles/vanity-bios primarily arise from the fact that not many are able to identify independence and reliability of sources, context-wise, when it comes to company-articles.Frankly, the official requirements to be inducted as a AFC reviewer--90 days and 500 edits is too low to properly gauge these issues.I don't think that even if you wind-backwards to your days as a newbie and participate in the AFD, you would have been able to reason as beautifully, as you did at the linked AFD.

One good step to remove the COI-bias at play over AFC, would be to advice all new AFCReviewers to not indulge in reviewing/accepting CORP-articles until they have participated in several CORP-AFDs and can demonstrate that they are capable to gauge the complex-requirements of sourcing in the area.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

About to go to bed, will respond to Kevin tomorrow, but wanted to reply to Godric lest I get angry AfC people here in the AM thinking I don’t like them: Yes, AfC does fend off a lot of spam, and I’m very grateful for it. I suppose my point is that if you speak standard North American or British English you can likely ask enough questions to get anything approved, and that favours people with financial or other motives besides just building an encyclopedia. It’s not an individual problem with any particular reviewer, it’s a structural problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm definitely not angry, esp. given that your post above is probably the most impressionable set of observations about AFC, I've come-across till-date.I will definitely agree on the point of structural flaw but it's general human tendency to help those who ask/pester for it--a thing COI-editors are usually heavily proficient at.

I've at at some point of time started telling off the submitants straightaway that:-- You're putting in your efforts for hopeless cases which may be better directed elsewhere but apparently some people at HelpDesk, TeaHouse etc. (who are all quite-nice folks and I ain't criticizing their view) believe that we still ought to guide them in expending hundreds of edits behind that draft which is never-ever going to get live.Perspective and mileage vary:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

*poke* "will respond to Kevin tomorrow" Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Saw this yesterday. Still on my mind but too tired to think currently, ha. Haven’t forgotten about you. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Kevin, sorry for taking so long to respond. My RL has been hectic of late (as I keep telling multiple people on my TP and email...), and while my edit count is relatively high, that's because the stuff I'm doing tends to be easy and high on edit counts (plus I have a lot of typos...).
  Anyway, to your point on maintenance work, burnout, and content contributions I get what you are saying. I've taken a bit of a break from directly patrolling new pages (I still do the coordination for NPP and focus on new content in other ways at COIN and SPI with paid editing accounts) because I was getting a bit burnt out from the work, and I felt I could better work with new content in other ways, such as focusing on using my new tools in dealing with more complex UPE situations and cleanup. I'll likely return to more active patrolling of the feed in the next month or two, but it was needed for me to take a break. I personally don't like doing AfC or helping in -help, not because I don't think it is important, but because I simply don't have the patience for the back and forth over drafts that in all honestly are likely never going to be accepted (I will only decline at AfC if I think this is the case. If I think something has a shot of surviving AfD, I'll try to fix up the wonky formatting or add sources, and then promote it).
  Re: the relationship with content contributors, I think I have a pretty good relationship with people from all aspects of Wikipedia: I get along equally well with most of the hardcore content crowd as I do with most of the gnomes or project-space focused admins. I think part of the reason for this for me personally is because I do have a pretty decent content record, even if my general focus is on project space.
  I think it gives me a good perspective as an admin for how people feel on both "sides" of the divide, and it also allows me to see the frustration some of the more prolific content creators feel. This most commonly comes up in the context of RfA or block reviews, and while I used to not be particularly fond of content creation opposes at RfA (and my criteria are still some of the most lenient around), I get them a lot more now. I think anyone who is thinking about RfA should go through a stub category, find an old article created in 2006 and not improved since then, and try to bring it to GA status or at least clean it up, if only to realize that it isn't just the new content that needs work, and that we still have a lot of important topics where the articles need a lot of work. For wikignomes who aren't considering RfA, I think it is a good experience too, as it is a different set of skills than dealing with AfC or NPP, and I think it helps you better respond to the new editors who will be asking you questions (you know what a good article looks like, rather than a minimally acceptable article.)
  Finally, to your general question re: burnout, I do recommend having a fallback activity that isn't your number one focus on Wikipedia but that you do as a way to relax. For me, it is dealing with old text copyright issues and helping out with UTRS and CAT:RFU. All are difficult in their own way, but I find there tend to be some tasks that just are relaxing, and help us do others better. Not sure what it is for you, but it's good to find one. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

ACTRIAL

I can't imagine any NPP editor will want to go back to the pre-WP:ACTRIAL firehose of crap. How to make it WP:ACPERM after March 14? Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I’ve been meaning to draft an RfC on it. I’d like to give the WMF time to finalize the research, but on balance it seems like a big success, and the feedback I’ve gotten even from non-NPP circles is that people generally want it to stay. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we just call it a success and keep it in place without 6 months off the trial? I've seen newr zero complaints and the world did not end Legacypac (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The 2011 consensus was for a trial, and I think it is important for the portion of the community that did not want ACTRIAL to have their say: there are a lot of complaints about how the WMF has made trials permanent in the past, and I don't want this to be one of them. I'm confident it will be made permanent, however, as I've said, I've only received positive feedback with the exception of some outreach and GLAM concerns, which I think can be addressed individually. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Tony, you and I disagreed about a G5 earlier today but I want to let you know that I trust you to draft a properly written RfC on this matter, which I will be happy to support. We need to make ACTRIAL permanent, and perhaps even to increase the threshold requirements. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. And yes, I know we had a disagreement earlier today, but it was just that, a disagreement. We both have the good of the encyclopedia at heart, even when we disagree, and I certainly don't think less of you for it, and hope the same is true in reverse. Things like that are actually why I think an RfC is necessary: this is a community based project, and allowing the people who disagree with ACTRIAL to have their say is important to the legitimacy of the outcome, which I obviously hope is that it will become a permanent requirement. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Tony -- on WP:JIMBOTALK, here, we had a discussion about raising autoconfirmed. I don't agree with raising it as a whole, but rather raising the bar for article creation. As usual on JIMBOTALK it's a nice chat but nothing paid forward. I was wondering what you might think of this. Thanks, talk to !dave 11:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think raising the requirements for article creation beyond autoconfirmed is an interesting idea, but I don’t think we’d ever achieve consensus for it, and I don’t believe in launching RfCs where I am not already reasonably sure of the outcome beforehand. Also I disagree with Kumioko’s point re: IP editing. I think it’s pretty vital to growing the contributor base. Odd he’s the one suggesting it as it would make it harder for him to block evade *waves to Comcast IP from Virginia* TonyBallioni (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hey Tony, I'm a bit curious about two things. First, you have a 'global renamer' topicon, which I find bizzare: I just check your user rights and the list of global renamers on meta and you're not on the list. Second, you have a userbox that says: "This page has been A7'ed by Drmies", and the link on "A7'ed" points to the deletion log on mainspace page TonyBallioni, not the User page named "User:TonyBallioni". Could you explain? L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Maybe he didn't get added to the meta list yet, but if you check his meta rights, it's there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, but I'm still intrigued by that A7 Userbox. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Read it again, it says "this user" not "this page". It's a fairly clear joke about the fact that a vandal made a page with Tony's username as a title, which was deleted by drmies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Since Tony is actively editing, that means he is a living person, and so that page got deleted as a BLP A7. Very funny. :) L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

L293D, yes, I just got global renamer today. I mainly applied for the flag to help out with unblock requests, but if you look at my contributions and logs, you'll see I have done a few simple ones today, so I do indeed have the right :). Re the userbox saying that I've been A7'd by Drmies, well, that's probably the best honour I've had on here. In fact, I've had several admins and functionaries ask me to create pages about them so Drmies could A7 it. It's a highly sought after userbox. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, ha ha ha. Well, I got a great honor that you probably never received: an account was named in my honor: Donner60 and L293D are stupid :) L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Heh, been there, and that doesn't count the globally oversighted ones by steward magik or other troll names that I can't remember the beginning too. Just means you're being noticed. Drmies has a lot (I think there is one about Ks0stm putting mustard in his Frappacino somewhere...) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Drmies has quite a big fan. —AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a well-known antisemite, and User:Dr.K. has been my lover for many years. Would you like me to disappear somebody? Drmies (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you still taking payments in BitCoin or do you prefer a wire to the Swiss account? TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

G5

Ajithmattam stopped editing on 2-14-18 and was blocked on the 20th. Mark began to edit on the 16 and was blocked on the 20th. So because Mark created the page prior to to Ajit's 20th block it doesn't count? Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't created in violation of a block or ban. They were only blocked for socking after the draft was created. The block was for socking to evade scrutiny and make it seem like there were people other than the named master who viewed the subject as notable. I'll send to MfD, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, as evident by this diff User:Dylan Cerbone 2018 is back with another sockpuppet account, namely User:Dylan Cerbone 9262006. Could you please have a look and take appropriate measures? Thanks. --Marbe166 (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Asked for CU to see if we can find sleepers or do an underlying range block. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick :). Thanks! --Marbe166 (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Nun Work

Hey, Tony. You must be tired of finding my name on your talk page. Are there any nuns or convents that are in need of work or creation? This subject is a particular favorite of mine and it would be a joy to detail these fine ladies. - Conservatrix (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Conservatrix, I mainly deal with early modern history Catholic history, and within that, mainly with papal conclaves and biographies related to them. For what it is worth, there are probably many Spanish nuns and female mystics from the 15th and 16th centuries that are notable that need creating, but I'd have to go through a lot of old notes from undergrad to find them for you. Something that you might be able to work on is improving the already existing articles we have on nuns, female religious, and convents. This is generally easier to do, and will give you a clear target to start with. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I will scour existing articles here and on other wikis. Keep me in mind should one surface. - Conservatrix (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A good method of narrowing the parameters for oneself is using the catagories. For example: Category:Nunneries in England takes one to Category:Benedictine nunneries in England from which we get to Amesbury Abbey. There we see that Isabel of Lancaster, was Prioress in the mid-14C...and is WP:REDLINKED. What?!, you cry—a granddaughter of Henry III of England and sister to the Duke of Lancaster, with no article?! She has an ODNB entry, an article from R. B. Pugh, and various other b&ps, so something should be easily salvageable for her. More generally, I suspect that the last abbesses (c. 1530–39) will often be discussed (if not heavilly, than regularly) in the literature, purely down to the fact that they made the final transfers to the King. For example Johanna Williams of Studley Priory.

Building articles for the abbeys themselves is a good idea: some (?most) of them are phenomonally poorly served here (Winchcombe Nunnery, Grimsby Nunnery, etc.—merely one-line stubs, and yet with plenty of RSs out there. Bromhall Priory could be fun—it was dissolved, on the grounds of "profanity," fifteen years before the Dissolution by its own Bishop). In writing up the institution, you may end up providing yourself with more redlinks that can subsequently be filled. It is, really, much easier to go through a list bluelinking than to keep doing individual searches. Again, see Romsey Abbey#List of Abbesses: although mostly just plain text rather than redlinks, most of those named have no article I suspect, yet Romsey was one of the most important abbeys in the country, and probably the most important in the South of England (See also Barking Abbey, which also needs its "List of abbesses" turned blue).

Anyway; just a couple of ideas there. Best of luck. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to ping Conservatrix some days ago. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

explain block please?

Just wondering the reason my account is suddenly blocked from editing... Please explain. PUNKMINKIS (TALKYTALK) 19:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Punkminkis: How can you be blocked if you can post here? —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the block message you are seeing? TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, apparently this was a mobile issue. The block message was "This network has been used improperly by someone on your network. It has therefore been blocked as a precaution to prevent abuse and damage to Wikipedia." When I got home and connected to my Wi-Fi, I was able to edit no problem. I just have no clue why my mobile network was blocked. Was this an automatic something that you or a bot of yours did? PUNKMINKIS (TALKYTALK) 02:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Punkminkis:, were you logged in? I don't think I would do a hard IP range block for a significant period of time unless there was significant abuse or without clearing it with a CheckUser (several of whom watch this page and have been the victim of my "consultations"). TonyBallioni (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I was logged in. I originally tried making an edit through the mobile app, it said I was blocked. So I tried through Firefox, requesting mobile page, I could then see the block message. I somehow tricked the network into letting me post in this talk page, but I couldn't reply an hour later, I was blocked from commenting on this page as well. PUNKMINKIS (TALKYTALK) 03:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes the mobile app doesn’t log in (I’ve had this as an issue for me before). To my knowledge I only have one existing hard rangeblock that is not a VPN. If you were using a VPN or webhost, that would explain it because I’ve blocked approximately 40% of Microsoft Azure and significant portions of AWS and Digital Ocean. I have a few hard IP blocks that are for individual IPs, but those are for very specific LTAs, and none of them are on mobile networks. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Really?

You're going to edit war to add your "some editors" weasel wording in WP:42? I think your "some editors" is bullshit, and you need to get consensus to add it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, there is an entire essay on how it shouldn't be cited at the bottom of the page. The essay is used with new users and vastly oversimplifies policies and guidelines. Letting them know that it isn't a universally agreed standard is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

So, you're going to completely ignore my objection to your edit? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Which is? You haven't really explained it well or in terms that aren't snarky or aggressive. I'm just confused as to why a statement telling new users that not everyone agrees with that summation of the guidelines so to avoid using it in AfD is controversial. If there is something I'm missing please let me know, but I think it's used enough that we should be clear to people that it is just an essay. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I can explain a bit of my hostility. I don't think you understand the drama involved here. Wikipedia:Don't cite WP42 at AfD is an essay written about me. I was citing WP:42 at AfD, it pissed off someone, and he wrote an essay saying that I shouldn't do it. This is why I react with hostility to people who throw that in my face. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, oh shit. I didn't realize that. I was really confused by your edit summary which is why I reverted since it didn't make any sense at first to me, and I'm always willing to discuss stuff (I tried to explain in my es why I thought it was needed).

Oddly enough, I dislike the 42 essay for the opposite reasons of that essay: I think it's too easy to twist from a spammer's side and doesn't go into the detail that our other policies and guidelines do, and was reminded of it because of something else, and tried to make a bold edit that I thought would make it easier if there were objections to deleting stuff because it passed 42.

Anyway, sorry for any stress this caused you, and I hope it doesn't cause you to think less of me. I didn't think a revert to restore what I considered a very minor tweak to a very minor essay would be that big of a deal, and I was clearly wrong. Please accept my apologies. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe I was simply the last straw before WP:NOT42 was written or something, but it only inflamed tensions, if you ask me. I apologize for my reaction, but that essay reopens a lot of old, tendentious drama, especially when their ultra-inclusionist views are put in the article and mine are relegated the talk page. I'm sure there's a way to resolve any issues or problems without this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You're good. I'll drop it: didn't know it was a hornet's nest. The huge irony here is that I view 42 itself as an ultra-inclusionist essay in how I would read it if I were a new user (not necessarily the content itself), which is why I tried to hedge it. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

quacking ducks

Hey Tony, its me a again. I just two very obvious socks: GvozdikaMM4 and AlifARMM4A. I wasn't sure what to do, so I thought of telling you about it. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, some one else just did it. If this happens again, what would you recommend doing? L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd go to WP:SPI. If you're using Twinkle, it has a report tool that makes filling things out a little easier/faster. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thanks. Ill try that next time. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

They've already been blocked by Yamla and Luk. Filing the SPI might still be worth it though either to document or for a sleeper check. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Richard Manitoba

I added to the talk page, but a little disturbed that a tossed off "BLP vio" comment without expansion is grounds to have said content removed, where content that appears that actually has to have been written by the man's publicist ("we hope to have it in the marketplace soon") remains for years.

Thank you for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravellerInStygian (talk • contribs) 16:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

TravellerInStygian, not a problem. I would recommend you remove the content until it is discussed (that is the standard anytime someone removes content on the grounds it violates our biographies of living persons policy). TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:ACREQ

I've started a page at WP:ACREQ as a centralized place to assemble the case for making Auto-Confirmed REQuired for new mainspace page creations. This should save us typing the same case over and over and be useful when we run the RfC. Feel free to expand it if you like. Legacypac (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Legacypac. I've been working with Kudpung to get an RfC up which hopefully we will be able to post very soon. I think getting a place to coordinate statistics and the like could be helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I hope it is useful. Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Pending change nightmares

You made a good point....too many people in Wikipedia, thousands at any one time.

Maybe Wikipedia might be better at an encyclopedia's pace with breaking news stories and not try to be a news website? I don't know. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I replied to your post on Melanie's page. I don't think we have a need for any new guidelines of policies on them. I'm just very hesitant to use them personally because I've seen enough pages where it's created enough technical issues in the edit history. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)