Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

3O request re bibliographical reference

Collapsed 3O probable request to neutralize

Removal of bibliography entry. (In this week's The Economist's letters to the editor, the bias of the editorial control of the Wiki article on Race ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)) is once again raised (in response to a previous article on the same subject). My question is, why in the extensive bibliography of this article is a single reference work ("Race" by John R. Baker, Oxford University Press, 1974) removed? Is it because this is perhaps the only work cited that disagrees with the regnant editors who refuse to permit any mention of the significant cohort of geneticists and biologists who do not believe that “race is a social construct"? The disingenuity of the editors in disallowing any themes except their own is astonishing—and a great disservice to Wiki readers.02:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.103.105 (talk) (I forgot to log in.03:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholzel (talk • contribs) 03:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC) I wasn't clear. I am only complaining that a single bibliography reference was first edited, and then removed. It is a well-known text on racial differences among humans, but runs counter to the entire thrust of the current article on the subject. (My extraneous comments about the several comments in The Economist magazine were mere venting on my part, but showing that the bias of the editors even caused that neutral news magazine to notice.)Tholzel (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC) I've left a message about this for you on your user talk page. Please see that note before continuing to add anything more here. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

3PO required at User talk:The Four Deuces

Collapsed 3O request to neutralize

Discussion has moved to User talk:The Four Deuces from the Glenn Beck article where it began. There is currently a debate in America between the conservatives and the progressives about progressive philosophy and its effect in America. Progressives contend that they have had a great impact, conservatives that they have a bad impact(simple version). The Four Deuces contends though that there is no progressive philosophy or tradition in America which makes it hard to edit on the matter. He believes that progressivism morphed into conservatism. When asked what difference he believes there is between the progressives of the current day and those of the early 1900s he says: "I don't know if any serious writer has bothered to write a comparison, so I can only rely on my own observations." To which I linked him to this series of articles by the Center for American Progress, the largest progressive organization in the country: The Progressive Intellectual Tradition in America "The new Progressive Tradition Series from the Center for American Progress traces the development of progressivism as a social and political tradition stretching from the late 19th century reform efforts to the current day. He has stated also that there is no Progressive philosophy to which I quoted Brittanica: "generally motivated by common assumptions and goals—e.g., the repudiation of individualism and laissez-faire, concern for the underprivileged and downtrodden, the control of government by the rank and file, and the enlargement of governmental power in order to bring industry and finance under a measure of popular control." Please help out here. I am trying to be patient, but I wrote an essay on this for my U.S history AP test which I got a 5 on, and this user is calling me a conspiracy theorist and talking sarcastically and condescendingly towards me. If you google "Progressive tradtion" you will find millions of sources explaining the progressive tradition in America, it is not a made up movement at all, but an influential and rich part of the American political history, and not to sound biased here, but I am genuinely confused as to why he denies its existence. Please help.AerobicFox (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Kilculliheen tale of townlands

Collapsed 3O request to neutralize

Townlands A wikitable was created which listed townlands in the barony of Kilculliheen. Some townlands lie, either exclusively or partly in County Kilkenny. Other townlands lie, either exclusively or partly in County Waterford (or Waterford City in current times). The partial townlands are split between the two counties. Another editor prefers to present this information as a prose description. I think that the table is more illuminating. But central facts are not in dispute, just the presentation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Taking. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make Third Opinion requests on this talk page!

All requests for Third Opinions should be made in the Active Disagreements section of the main Third Opinion Project page. Please read the instructions at the top of that page before making your request. Listing your request here may result in your request not being considered or may interfere with the neutrality which this project seeks to maintain. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I edited the top-of-page notice so it won't appear to prohibit appropriate discussion of 3rd opinion issues here by project members. – Athaenara ✉ 21:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wording

I'm thinking of changing references to 'article' and such like to 'page' — nothing says disputes only occur in the main space. Feezo (Talk) 08:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Editnotice

I created an editnotice for this page so hopefully we won't see any more requests on this talk page! Any comments on it? (You see it when you edit this page.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate description of dispute

This One editor seeks the inclusion of Poland as one of the countries which gained territory via the Munich Agreement, another editor wishes only Germany and not Poland be mentioned. is not a neutral or unbiased description of the dispute. The question is rather of relevancy and WP:SYNTH (true, there is also the fact that the basic information is inaccurate).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've neutralized it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Notify other editor?

Early on in the talk pages of this project, there was discussion about notifying the other editor involved in these third opinion matters. The discussion did not seem to resolve the question and I do not see that the issue was resolved one way or the other. In any event, the instructions on the 3O page do not tell the editor posting the notice to notify the other editor about the 3O post. The closest any such instruction comes is this comment: "Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants." I bring this up because a 3O request was posted last week regarding a page I am concerned with. Only by reviewing the other editor's contribs did I find this page. (Since then I have tagged the particular talk page with the 3O template and responded.) Absent objection from other editors, I think I'll add a line to the 3O instructions telling 3O posters to notify the other editor that they have posted a request on these pages. --S. Rich (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that 3O requests are supposed to be "anonymous", insofar as editors aren't supposed to include their names when submitting requests, it would seem counterproductive to ask editors to include notifications that they have submitted requests elsewhere. Just my two cents. Doniago (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You've brought up an interesting point. Still, I see that submitters are invited to tag the talk page which concerns them with a {3O} template. The project guidance in this regard -- notify or don't notify, anonymous or not, tag talk page or not -- is unclear. That is, tagging cerrtainly notifies the 2nd editor and/or the "added by both participants" admonition means it can't be a single editor seeking the 3O. --S. Rich (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The ideal for this project is for a Third Opinion Wikipedian to see a neutral listing, examine the arguments which have already been made by the disputants, render an opinion, and ride off into the sunset with a hardy "Hi, ho, Silver!" without interaction between the 3O'er and the disputants. That ideal should only break down when the nature or scope of the dispute is not clear from the arguments and the 3O'er has to seek clarification, and that is the only situation in which notification of either disputant should be needed (and in that situation, the notification would be to both disputants). The only reason notification to the "other" disputant might be useful would be to forestall the possibility that a dispute could be listed here but before a 3O is given the other disputant moves on to a RFC or some other form of dispute resolution, requiring the 3O to be declined (per the 3O FAQ), but there is little harm in that. What benefit would you, Srich32977, have obtained by being made aware of the 3O request? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I just realized that the listing of the dispute in which you are involved is more than six days old. I've removed it for staleness (see the last paragraph just above the "Active Disagreements" heading) and will also take the tag off the article talk page. Per the staleness paragraph, please feel free to relist it if you still want an opinion, but if no one has taken it after this long, you might be better served in moving on to an RFC or some other form of dispute resolution. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Stale disputes

A dispute I posted was removed with the explanation "no discussion [on the talk page]... since March 31, removing as stale." I don't think we should require discussion on an article's talk page in the last week.

If it's becoming a problem, perhaps there should be some sort of time guideline to encourage editors to attempt to restart discussions before bringing old disputes here.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not meaning to pick nits, but based on your post time that's closer to two weeks (it is two weeks as of today).

That being said, from the 3O main page - "Requests are subject to being removed from the list if no volunteer chooses to provide an opinion within six days after they are listed below." Was the 3O request listed for a week prior to removal? Doniago (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It was not listed for a week prior to removal.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case I might recommend contacting the removing editor, provided they or someone more familiar with 3O than I am doesn't chime in here. I would agree that the submissions page doesn't appear to list a guideline for Talk page recentism, though at the same time I could see why an editor might consider the discussion stale after 2 weeks of inactivity.

In the meantime, you can always relist the article in dispute. Doniago (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that I restored the listing as soon as I saw SaskatchewanSenator's first message here, half an hour after he posted it (23:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC) diff). – Athaenara ✉ 22:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Staleness calculation

Just to avoid any confusion: As per the discussion at the time the staleness point was inserted, a listing can be removed for staleness at any time on the seventh day (or, of course, later) after it is listed. In keeping with the way time periods are generally calculated here at WP (due, I suspect, to the fact that this is a 24-hour, global project) "six days" actually means 6x24=144 hours. So a request listed at, say 20:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC) can be deleted for staleness any time after 20:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC). Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting clarification

I understand that "third opinion" is only available for disputes involving two users. If this situation exists, yet a nearly identical dispute previously took place, involving multiple users, yet was never resolved, is "third opinion" still viable? (By previously, I mean several years ago.) Joefromrandb (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the rules say two people. Personally, I'd be happy to offer an nth opinion if required, but it's understandable that some others may not. bobrayner (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If the current dispute is between only two, it shouldn't be vulnerable to speedy removal from the active disagreements listings, although I can see how someone might think the previous unresolved years-old dispute could be a basis for overzealous removal. That's hypothetical, but if the current dispute you describe exists, why not list it and await results? – Athaenara ✉ 10:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the dispute has been settled. If that turns out not to be the case, I'll keep those suggestions in mind. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC's and proposals re dispute resolution

Just FYI to all, there have been two recent RFC's (first one, second one) concerning a review and potential revision of Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both of which have appeared to have stalled out without coming to a conclusion (though the second one might still be capable of being resuscitated), and also a current proposal (stage 1, stage 2) regarding the trial dispute resolution noticeboard. In all of these the possibility that the 3O project might be closed has at least been raised, though there does not seem to have been much enthusiasm for the idea. Unless I have misread them, there is no present threat to 3O. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Several requests, same problem

I am sorry to have added several 3-O requests just now for basically the same problem with different articles. I have no idea how inappropriate it may have been to do so. Two Swedish editors who often are in touch with each other and tend to work as a team, as far as I have seen for years now, also seem to have a main and sole special interest in English WP, the one and the other, namely to stalk me and correct me about this that and the other, often not very knowlegeably, and usually proven wrong after much time is wasted. Sorry again. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping in the wrong forum, Serge: "If more than two editors are involved, 3O is not appropriate." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This was directed toward other editors interest in 3O. I rest my case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Serge, you are always welcome to list disputes here which come within the guidelines of this project and the same welcome extends to the other editors you mention. No apologies are needed. While the guidelines limit the use of this project to disputes with only two editors, as previous discussions on this talk page have concluded there are many neutrals who are quite willing to give opinions in disputes involving more than two editors and, though there is no hard and fast rule on it, most experienced neutrals will not remove a listing without it being answered merely because it has three or four editors involved prior to the time the request was made. (I, for example, won't remove a listing for multiple editors unless there are five or more editors involved before the listing was made or unless new editors enter the discussion in a substantial way after the request has been made.) As for your issue with the two named editors, you probably won't get much help from your note here. You might want to very carefully read WP:HOUNDING and make a complaint at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if you believe improper activity is occurring. The reason you need to read that rule carefully is because merely following someone around and editing where they edit or editing their edits is not, by itself, a violation of policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this considerate reply! Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly a 3O request, but figured this was the best place to seek input

I am concerned with this article, found via New Page Patrol^{[you can help!]}. I don't want to say why; I would appreciate if some random cross-section of editors took a look. → ROUX ₪ 22:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think it has some moderately serious neutrality problems; but articles like that tend to anyway (which could be good or bad, depending on how you look at it). Any "Criticisms of..." article on a controversial subject is is bound to be a magnet for difficult editing in future. Some might prefer to AfD it but personally, I think it's worth trying to improve it - and if possible try to remove left-right tension. There are good sources available (ie. real economists and academics rather than polemicists), and this is an area where wikipedia's existing coverage is weak... bobrayner (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Some followup thoughts:

• The essay tag is appropriate, but incremental work on sourcing (and bending/expanding the text to fit good sources, not just incrementally referencing existing text) is likely to make the essayishness evaoprate naturally.
• The neutrality problems are not inherent. Its a content problem that can be fixed.
• There's a little too much emphasis on the simplistic old left/right paradigm. There are other ways of looking at the world, and other ways of classifying political/economic/social views. Fixing that would help keep problematic editing at bay in the longer term too.
• There's too much emphasis on The Servile State. It's not exactly a widely-accepted view of economics and regulation.
• It's somewhat biased towards the anglosphere (with a general nod towards Scandinavia as a place where benefits are higher, and taxes are higher to pay for those benefits). Plenty of scope to expand that to cover other parts of the world, including some parts where welfare is currently much smaller in amount or in scope, or highly skewed towards certain subsets of the population.
• Still, it's got more content and better sourcing than the average new article, and it's got some potential. :-)

I've watchlisted it. Will try tweaking when I have spare time. If somebody prodded it I would understand, though. bobrayner (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a few good Wikipedians

Just a quick note to request that some of you who labor in the mines here at 3O also consider lending a hand at the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or at the newly-revamped Mediation Cabal. If nothing else, link over and take a look around. The skills you use here at 3O will transfer quite nicely to DRN and will form a good foundation at MedCab and your help will be very much appreciated. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unusual behavior?

An editor saw something here and decided to comment on it, at first stating that h/s was responding as a 3O helper.

Then h/s removed that from h own entry and continued to discuss the matter not as a 3O respondent ("though I came from there do not act according it"), added a tag to the article and also changed the section heading on that talk page to better suit what h/s wanted to discuss.

Lastly h/s removed the 3O listing from here because "as there are for editors in discussion now. Use RfC if next level of resoultion needed".

Is that a normal way to respond to a 3O request, and if so, what happed to the original 3O request? SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

3O can only be filed for discussion where there are only two editors involved. When any other editor is involved, the discussion qualifies for 3O no more.

Regarding the claim about section rename: I renamed the section so that the template link from the article route readers to the actual discussion. What's wrong about that?

P.S.: RfC is really a right place to resolve disputes that no longer qualify for 3O. And I don't really get [[User:SergeWoodzing|] implicit claim that I limit his right for arbitration with removing the article from 3O list.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that there were only two editors involved, until you got in there, replied at first as a 3O helper, then changed your mind and removed that (note: you didn't strike it, you removed it), and from then on then counted yourself as an additional editor (more than two), and now you assert that that problem would invalidate the 3O procedure. Very confusing. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

PS I believe it is very inappropriate to comment on a discussion where a 3O request has been made before that request has had a chance to be answered. Seems to me it would be pretty easy to invalidate any and all 3O requests this way, unless other editors respect the process and give it a little time to work. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when other parties entered the discussion. This mean of dispute resolution isn't supposed to be used in discussion with more then three parties. And yes, all the requests are automaticly invalidated when there are more then two editors in discussion. This is by design. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to neutral comments as to whether or not this is the way 3O requests are to be handled, especially by editors who seem to have some experience (more that I have). I do not understand Czarkoff's methods here. Clearly disruptive in my opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's disruptive. A little weird perhaps; I'm not sure what rules he thought he had to act according to as a 3O responder (assuming that he's a neutral party, and he presumably is), and so I don't understand why he felt it necessary to remove the 3O part of his edit. Regardless, he did give a third opinion (official or otherwise), and when there's a third opinion, 3O's not the right place to put a request. If a third voice comes into the debate, whether it's through 3O, or from 3O unofficially, or just out of the blue, 3O's job is done. I don't think he did it to deliberately circumvent 3O, and since 3O doesn't really have any authority, I'm not sure what the point of circumventing 3O would be. Just my third opinion on a Third Opinion's third opinion.Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Writ Keeper, but would add that if you'll look back through the archives of this talk page, there is a considerable amount of agreement that disputes ordinarily should not be removed from the list for either having more than two editors involved or for incivility because there are Third Opinion Wikipedians who will offer opinions with beneficial effect despite those deficits. If no one thinks the dispute is appropriate for an opinion, then it can be removed under the six-day rule when it becomes stale, and that was one of the main reasons that the six-day staleness rule was added.

Note, however, that I say "should not" as there is no project guideline prohibiting removal of multiple-editor or incivil disputes, though you may come under criticism by other 3Oer's if you do it too often or too vigorously (and I speak from personal experience as the recipient of such criticism). A lot of old-timers here at 3O, including me, will remove a listing if there are 5 or more editors involved, but leave it on the list if there are 4 or fewer. The other common exception is the one which occurred here: If a new editor joins the frey after the 3O has been requested with the apparent purpose of giving a third (or fourth or whatever) opinion, then a third opinion is a third opinion whether or not it originates from the 3O page or is done with the purpose of responding to the 3O request and the 3O request can be removed (though I might refrain from doing so if the editor giving the opinion has previously been involved with the same or similar dispute on that page). (See my essay on The Third Opinion Paradox and my Personal Standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian for some background concepts and detail.)

There's nothing about a pending 3O request which ought to deter any editor from joining in a discussion; indeed, such collaboration is at the center of Wiki theory and the whole point of a 3O to help editors reach consensus, not to make judgments. Indeed, I have occasionally seen a dispute listed at 3O and have decided to join the discussion as a regular editor, rather than as a 3O Wikipedian. (Usually because I either am disqualified from issuing a 3O due to having dealt previously with one of the involved editors or because I want my position to "count" towards consensus, which a 3O does not, but other reasons are also possible.) I just make it clear that I'm joining as a regular editor, not as a 3Oer and I usually point out that my doing so may cause the Third Opinion Paradox to apply. I don't remove the listing from 3O, but am, frankly, surprised if someone else does not remove it due to my entry into the dispute.

In short, based on what's been said above (I've not looked at the actual edits), I see no problem in what happened although, if it had been me, I wouldn't have removed the 3O listing.

Finally, if someone is dissatisfied with what happens here at 3O, or has their listing removed due to multiple editors or incivility, the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is doing some good work and they can take the dispute there. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we can make a reasonable assumption of good faith here. The 3O editor responded as a neutral party, then decided the he/she wasn't really neutral and moved to a non-3O opinion. That's very reasonable (and commendable). Perhaps leaving the 3O request intact for some neutral party to remove might have been a good idea but the removal itself is not disruptive. --regentspark (comment) 18:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I removed the notice after second person came from 3O.
2. I had another motivation for removing my 3O status: I felt the need to act somehow to move the discussion from the point where it actually stalled. At the same time I believe that it is not appropriate to edit actual article under 3O editor status, though my editing resulted in adding a single template.

If I did something wrong, I would like to know, what exactly was wrong and why. I get the TransporterMan's point and I'm going on to follow it as a guide in future, but his conclusion was that there is no violation in my actions. If anybody believes that I actually committed violation of editors' rights, I would be thankful for explanation.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The general idea is that, no, you didn't do anything wrong. But, we think it would be best to err on the side of caution and not remove a 3O request if you didn't provide an official 3O reply in the future, to avoid drama if nothing else. No harm will come from having the request on the page until an uninvolved editor decides to remove it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. No yellow card, Ди́мка. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

User Papaursa

Do you think Papaursa should be reported to the ANI? He clearly shows no interest in working along side fellow Wikiepidians, refusing to listen to any open suggestions, clearly this user values his own opinion over to those who have fresh ideas from what he says. I was offering some very useful suggestions at the WP:MMANOT's discussion page, as with the criteria as it is right now only whatever is considered a 'top tier' promotion is safe, whereas any other promotion, such as BAMMA and EliteXC are put on shaky grounds. He refuses to even acknowledge what I'm saying, going as far as saying that it is me who isn't open for suggestion. Now I've always had the best interests of all pages on Wikipedia, and I am a team player so I cannot see how he came up with that theory, just because I questions the criteria on WP:MMANOT, a page I should point out that HE created. I noticed that many of the users who offer suggestions always ask him, as if he owns the page, which is a direct violation of WP:OWN. No-one should have to ask for permission from him to edit the page, especially as it seems that he is the one with the final say everytime. Here is the last comment he put on that page -

'Actually, the reason I haven't bothered to respond to all your statements is because it would be a waste of my time. It's clear you have a viewpoint (which you repeat/repost over and over) and that no facts will dissuade you from your beliefs. Since you've made it clear you value no opinions but your own, why should I bother? Answer--I shouldn't.'

Now again it is like I said I've never had a problem with taking in other people's opinions, so this is insulting for me to read. I will, however, try to reason with a bit, if he refuses to listen and take in what I say, I may go a head and report him to ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs) 15:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss Your issues with Papaursa on his talk page first. If this attempt fails, add a discussion link to WP:3O#Active disagreements. This place is intended for third opinion, not the second. And this talk page is intended for discussions on providing 3O, not requesting it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• I do apologise, I have added it to both pages for it to read by someone, the entry has been removed from the main page, so I can only imagine that someone is looking into this. BigzMMA 14:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)