Talk:Marine Corps Air Station El Toro

Untitled
The two references added to the article are appropriate, and it is a fact that Col. Sabow died on the morning of Jan. 22. JPatrickBedell 18:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Col. Sabow death
I smell an rv war brewing and before it get's out of hand, can we discuss it here? I'm interested in El Toro and every significant aspect of its history and I don't see the need to make this otherwise simple article a source of contention. It seems to me that there are 2 schools of thought on the inclusion:


 * 1) That the death should not be included because WP:BLP, WP:NOT, WP:BIO and
 * 2) That the death should be included because there is some notability surrounding it

I happen to lean a little toward including the death and a few facts that demonstrate and explain its notability. I think there might be enough notability in the death itself to warrant its own article. I disagree that the entire section needs to be purged on the basis of BLP or BIO or NOT. On the basis of the references, the death seems more notable than most other deaths on a military base or deaths on RT 1. What are your thoughts? --JJLatWiki 20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point, I don't feel that Colonel Sabow's death should be noted in this article, especially not with a section of his own. (Undoubtably deaths have occurred on other military bases, both suicides and murders; the same applies to small towns. In addition, in such occurrences, there are probably circumstances and rulings that are found to be questionable by family members. But, unless there is some greater level of notability, then his deathon base does not have a place in the article.)  None of the citations, nor online information I could find show that his death is a long-term notable part of MCAS El Toro history (which is the criterion that I think should be met)


 * If Col. Sabow himself does indeed merit an article on his own (see WP:BIO), then a link in a "See also" section might be appropriate. His death is a sad event and the heartache to his family is evident. The fact that his family has continued to pursue an investigation still does not establish notability.  Local news coverage at the time of his death would be expected, but again does not establish notability.


 * &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of his death in any article related to Col. Sabow is an assertion of notability unsupported by reliable sources. A search of his name reveals, outside of local media, only a walled garden of personal sites asserting a wild theory.--Mmx1 02:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it might be a wild theory and the vast majority of reliable sources are local or regional, and I would even venture a guess that wider coverage is the result of a vocal family trying to keep their theory alive. But apparently the CBS magazine program, Eye to Eye did cover some aspect of it.  I agree that it doesn't deserve its own section, but it definitely garnered more media coverage that the vast majority of deaths on military bases.  But most interesting may be that Congress required Sabow's cause of death to be reviewed and made it part of the 2004 Defense Appropriations Bill.  http://www.sdpb.org/Archives/ProgramDetail.asp?ProgID=1647 (I haven't played the media file) and of course http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.1588.ENR: (look at sec 584).  I haven't watched the video here at the local NBC affiliate either: http://www.nbc4.tv/investigations/10321697/detail.html  I only scanned the first 3 pages of the simple Google search.  In my opinion, having your death reviewed by congressional mandate seems to satisfy at least a low level of notability.  Does it qualify as notable to the El Toro article?  Does it qualify for its own article?  --JJLatWiki 05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be very reluctant to add any of the info provided if for no other reason then it makes some pretty serious allegations about persons that are still alive. Unless these facts can be verified then you will be placing links to sources that accuse a former Commandant of the Marine Corps of having a man ordered killed.  That is some very heavy stuff.  I would say that unless this thing ever moves beyond conspiracy theory it is best left off the page.--Looper5920 19:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there are some facts that could be in WP that would leave out the wild parts of the theory and the names of accused. But first let me say, there are deaths on military bases and then there are significant deaths on military bases.  On Jan 14, 1991, he was apparently appointed Chief of Staff of Marine Corps Air Operations for the Western U.S., and 8 days later found dead of an apparent suicide with a shotgun.  Since then there has been national, and other non-trivial coverage of the death, and special consideration written into defense appropriations in order to review the cause of his death.  This wasn't a LCpl killed by a drunk driver while jogging around the base at night or getting sucked into an F/A-18 intake.  There are facts and there is speculation.  He was Chief of Staff of Marine Corps Air Operations for the Western U.S.  His death was ruled a suicide.  Congress and by signing, the President, did order the Secretary of Defense to review the cause of his death.  There need be no mention of the background that lead to the review and thus implicate a living person.  Holy crap!  I just realized that I was discharged from the Marine Corps, at El Toro, 2 days before the death.  I probably still have newspapers used for packing my crap from back then.  --JJLatWiki 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read the references. None of the references (to take as an example), to my knowledge, makes any reference to the former Commandant of the Marine Corps. That was included as part of a preliminary effort to incorporate the testimony by Kay Griggs, the loving wife of Colonel George Griggs, who was an assistant to General Alfred Gray. My hope was that named individuals would (threaten to) sue for libel... but sometimes, for certain individuals, the legal system is not the most expedient way of addressing inconvenient information and those who share it. JPatrickBedell 19:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Until it moves beyond conspiracy theory it does not belong. This website is not here for people to post wild allegations hoping for a response from the accused to bring attention to their causes.  I argue that as of now his death should be treated no diffeently then any other death that occured on the air station over the years until actual prrof of wrongdoing is produced. --Looper5920 19:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the theory amounts to original research and as such certainly doesn't belong in WP. Depending on what the Sec of Defense review found, of course.  But there seems to be enough evidence of notability that differentiates this death from nearly all others.  Chief of Staff Air Ops West committing suicide 8 days after being appointed seems significant enough.  Having that conclusion of suicide reviewed by federal mandate elevates it a tad more.  There need be no links to conspiracy theory pages at all to report the official facts.  But, IMO, the official facts should be included.  --JJLatWiki 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a very charming trust in the SecDef and OSD expressed in your comment, JJLatWiki! Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

JPatrickBedell 16:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't imply any trust in the Secretary of Defense or OSD. If the SecDef review says it was a suicide and there is no indication of foul play, the requirement for extraordinary contradictory sources increases and otherwise changes nothing other than adding the fact to the documentation.  If SecDef says it appears to have been murder but doesn't discuss possible perpetrators or motives, it simply changes the cause of death and maybe adds some notability.  If SecDef says it was murder and there may have been some kind of coverup by base or other government personnel, then maybe the gloves are off.  --JJLatWiki 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I venture to guess that if a full list of all the items that were put into a Defense Appropriations bill were to be reviewed, there would be a number of items that are not necessarily noteworthy. The reference given is to a public broadcasting note that this was in the bill.  Is there a source for the bill that indicates what else was in there?  Just a question, do second reviews of deaths of military personnel require Congressional funding?  BTW, I note that an article has been created today for James E. Sabow by User:JPatrickBedell.  Mr. Bedell, your user page indicates that you are "determined to see that justice is served in the death of Colonel James Sabow".  The use of this article, and the creation of an article on Col. Sabow, for that purpose appears to fall under Conflict of interest.  &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I included a link to the full text of the bill HR 1588. Obviously there are a ton of critical elements, pork barrel, and less noteworthy items.  There doesn't seem to be any other mandated review of a cause of death and I have no idea if such a thing is unusual.  The fact that there is only one that I can find in the 2004 bill and that it was for a death 13 years earlier suggests to me that it is an exceptional case.  There was no specific funding allocated for the review.  Maybe it's part of the $16,243,157,000 authorized for Defense-wide operation and maintenance activities.  I assume there "run of the mill" second reviews and exceptional second reviews.  Unfortunately the simple searches I've done reveal no indication the review was reported to either Committee on Armed Services.  --JJLatWiki 05:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I agree that if JPatrickBedell has a personal connection to the case, he should refrain from editing relavent articles. --JJLatWiki 05:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no connection whatsoever with the case except for my conviction that murder is wrong (setting aside the professional questions associated with Col. Sabow's occupation). My only involvement with the case is as an observer of the USG, DoD, USMC, etc. JPatrickBedell 09:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Watch yourself. I wouldn't want you to get hurt in case you ever fell from that high horse.--Looper5920 09:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * JPatrickBedell, you've got to be careful that your strong convictions and opinions don't cause you to cross the line between facts and speculation. For me, the conspiracy theory nature of the accusations makes me doubt the veracity of the sources you've cited.  Like Meixa Tech.  Is Meixa an otherwise well-respected forensic analysis organization?  Can that be demonstrated?  --JJLatWiki 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose the following statement for Sabow:
 * On January 22, 1991, the Chief of Staff of Marine Corps Air Operations for the Western U.S., Col. James E. Sabow, was found dead in the back yard of his MCAS El Toro officers housing residence. His death was ruled a suicide in all official investigations.  His family has contested the findings, further claiming that Sabow was murdered.  In the fiscal 2004 Defense Appropriations Bill, a special rider was attached ordering the Secretary of Defense to review the cause of Sabows death and report back to Congress.

I think every fact can be cited and there is no speculation or connection to the conspiracy theory. The speculated murder could have been the result of any number of possible, and typical, reasons. I don't know. I have no particular interest in this death. I do now think it adds a little interest to the El Toro story. I don't think every military base has a controversy or unusual event this big, so on that basis, I think it should be documented. (Unlike the "Taste of Lexus" event ;-) ) --JJLatWiki 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to respectfully disagree. I find it hard to believe that you can question his sources and then add an entire paragraph on this subject.  This is a conspiracy theory and should not be added to the article.  His sources are bogus and his claims are as well.  Yes, this is not a LCpl dying in a DUI accident but Colonels and Generals have died on military installations before and with their rank almost all have had an important positions.  The only reason to mention Col Sabow here would be if there was a cover up or for some other criminal reason (like this guy insinuates that Gen Grey had him ordered killed in a plot to keep the US government in the drug trade).  None of which this guy can prove.  I strongly believe that the information should not be added.--Looper5920 18:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with leaving it out. It's not really a big deal to me.  But I questioned HIS sources for the conspiracy.  I think reliable sources can substantiate MY paragraph, ie the NY Times and the Library of Congress.  On the subject of notability though, out of the number of Colonels and General who have died on a military base, how many can you name who were discovered in their pajamas with a shotgun blast to the back of their throat?  How many of those are named specifically in any act of Congress that got signed by the President? --JJLatWiki 20:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm the person who wrote that piece. This is my first time using wikipedia and I'm a complete noob, but why didn't this page at least mention his death once in a foot note? We can debate if military deaths should be included in these pages, but I doubt people care about those who died of natural causes. Obviously those who even cared to write a wiki on El Toro are much much much older than me and care greatly about this page, but do they view it as "their" page? We can either compromise or I can keep pasting my same little excerpt until the nurses pry the mouse from your hand. As a side, I want to thank the person who footnoted my excerpt as at the time I didn't even know how to work the formating. Unfotunately I didn't even get that copy done before it was removed. --Meltmycone 22:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Because this article is about a geographic location and not "suspicious events" or trivia that occured at the base, no more than the Washington Navy Yard article needs to delve into the resasons and theories behind Adm. Boorda's death just because his body was found there. Please also refrain from personal attacks on other editors. --Mmx1 03:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Meltmycone, as a newcomer to Wikipedia, perhaps you are unaware that your idea of "pasting my same little excerpt until the nurses pry the mouse from your hand" is contrary to Wikipedia principles. See Edit war.  Disputed content is discussed on article talk pages and inclusion is a result of community consensus.  Continually re-adding the material could results in a violation of Wikipedia's 3 revert rule (aka 3RR).  The merits of including information about Col. Sabow's death are currently being discussed at on Articles for deletion.  &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Mmx1's reasoning for excluding Boorda's death from Wash Navy Yard. The fact that he killed himself at WNY can be included without saying or implying "suspicious".  If the Mayor of DC had killed himself on the base, would it be notable enough to mention in the WNY article?  What if it was a Virginia Governor?  A Senator?  The President?  Since the article is about the "geographic location", no such suicide would be acceptable.  But I disagree that it's about a geographic location, since the article title is not "33.67° N 117.73° W".  Facts like Nixon's landings there are interesting and appropriate even though there is only a tangential connection.  Obviously there isn't adequate notability to create an article called Nixon's landings at MCAS El Toro, but IMO, there IS adequate notability to include such information in the MCAS El Toro article.  I assume we would have strong concensus that LCpl. Williams killing himself to avoid being arrested for selling cocaine in the barracks is NOT notable for El Toro.  I assume we would have strong concensus that President XYZ's suicide for unknown reasons WOULD be notable for the El Toro article.  Do you agree?  --JJLatWiki 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a response to Mmx1 and ERcheck. First, this event has more than just ties to a geographic location, if you don't know yet the colonel was Chief of Air Operations. As far as the agreement goes, like you say we are suppose to talk about it here and I haven't pasted it back yet because I'm waiting for the user who takes it down constantly to show up and talk. I only want a compromise. I think any reasonable person would be fine with a short line being mentioned in the trivia section. I fear you three people just don't want anything mentioned because it is controversial and that wouldn't be right. So I am fine with it not having its own section, but no trivial mention at all is unacceptable. All info on wikipedia is subject to the same terms and conditions and repasting this is within the users rights. At this point, I would at least come back with a counter offer. --Meltmycone 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I will have to respectfully disagree and say that it is very acceptable that the information on Col Sabow is not included. Wikipedia is not a place to list who committed suicide where even if they were a Colonel.  MCAS El Toro was no different than any other small town in America.  People died and or killed themselves from time to time.  Do we keep a running list for every town or city in the world?  No because it is inappropriate.  It is also not the place to throw out conspiracy theories about people's deaths.  Until this moves beyond the stage of conspiracy theory it is inappropriate to place it here.  As for your source....I would say it is iffy at best.  The local free paper is not necessarily noted for its journalistic integrity.  Was this article right next to the adds for the local massage parlor? --Looper5920 00:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your comparison to this being a town is completely ridiculous. Lets go with it though.  This would be like the death of a mayor, or chairman of the council or vip; not a bum in the alley.  I can see how you find this as a conspiracy, since it is.  I get a sense that no matter what level of authority this reaches you will always view this as inconclusive until the Air Force rules it murder, in which case you will never believe the military can do wrong.  Sorry if this stuff offends you, but it's time to face it.--Meltmycone 03:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work toward the inclusion of Colonel Sabow in the MCAS El Toro article, Meltmycone. I think the most appropriate way to contribute toward that objective is to work to raise MCAS El Toro to the level where it can be a featured article, with numerous references, images, and examples placing MCAS El Toro within context in the US military establishment and the US government.  Beginning from its construction and the missions it contributed to, and particularly including information and imagery regarding the officers quarters on base, the counterterrorist/couternarcotics/paramilitary missions it contributed to in its history, and the relationship with other facilities including, but not limited to, Camp Pendleton and the White House situation room.  The writing of a well-referenced, encyclopedic article about the history of MCAS El Toro is the best way to advance the objectives that we share.  Thanks to everyone for your contributions and civility!  JPatrickBedell 16:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The notion that Sabow's death should be included here is absurd. The article is about the Air Station. The article on Sabow was already deleted for failing WP:BIO and because it appeared to be a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia to push a conspiracy theory about his death. Two users are pushing for this - the author of the deleted Sabow article, and a single-purpose account whose only edits are here. Wikipedia is not the place for an unsourced and potentially defamatory conspiracy theory around Sabow's death, period. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with "absurd". I don't understand what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in an article defined as "about the Air Station".  Is it acceptable to say that MCAS EL Toro was the headquarters for COMCABWEST?  Is it acceptable to say that MCABWA (deactivated Jan 6, 2006) was establish Oct 4, 1957 by SecNav and that COMCABWEST served simultaneously as CG of MCAS El Toro?  Or are these facts unacceptable because they are not "about the Air Station"?  If the CG of MCAS El Toro and COMCABWEST committed suicide in his on-base residence 8 days after being assigned to CG/COMCABWEST, would it be noteworthy in the article about El Toro?  Would it noteworthy in the El Toro article or anywhere else, if federal legislation ordered a review of the cause of his death?  I'm not pushing anything.  I just wanna try get a sense of where the limits of consensus might be.  --JJLatWiki 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Introductory section
The last paragraph of the lead section notes that MCAS El Toro was twice the "final" stop for Richard Nixon. If this is not a defining characteristic of the base, perhaps it should go into a section on "Interesting facts". Certainly, Nixon is not the only President to visit the base. (See e.g. LBJ visited in 1968.) &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I had pictures of AF1 from a GHW Bush visit when I was stationed there. I think Presidents felt very safe landing there, knowing they were well protected on a USMC base and yet they were still close all LA regional locations, plus they didn't have to interfere with the air traffic as much at LAX (except for Clinton's infamous hair cut).  --JJLatWiki 05:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take the liberty of moving the information to the other facts section, as it is not defining for MCAS El Toro. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

inclusion of new Col. Sabow text
User:Meltmycone is apparently expressing a desire that I share - that the death of Col. Sabow be included in the article. I have written a referenced and factual paragraph that I believe is appropriate for inclusion. Thank you for your consideration. JPatrickBedell 22:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing has changed from the discussion above that show that this merits inclusion. Please do not add back, as is is counter to consensus.  &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Recently added "assertion"
A recent addition is an "assertion" by an alternative weekly reporter concerning drug trafficking. This is an unsubstantiated allegation. Not every allegation by a reporter should be included. There are many conspiracy theorists and many allegation, but they don't merit addition. The reporter making this allegation is the same one reporting on the Sabow case for the alternative weekly.

Wikipedia is not a repository allegations. I'm reverting the addition. If community consensus finds it otherwise notable, then it could be returned (with a NPOV consideration). &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On another note...the author makes assertions but it clearly states in the article that the pilot Never saw drugs being unloaded. The author just assumes they were to back up his thesis.--Looper5920 02:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your consideration in addressing the deletion on this page. As a sign of your willingness to consider articles from ocweekly.com for inclusion in this article, could you include two references for the ones that you have deleted? That is to say, if you think post-BRAC real estate developments at El Toro are more noteworthy than a Colonel's shotgun death, could you please put them in? I would be happy to supply the cite details, given the URL (as I did for the two deleted articles). That would go a long way to show that you tend toward laudable exclusionism instead of suppressionism. Thanks! JPatrickBedell 03:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another ocweekly.com link for potential inclusion in the article: http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/cold-case-at-the-marine-base/20668/. JPatrickBedell 03:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Knight Rider Reference
Don't know if this is the place to ask this,

But isn't the hanger that is the Knight Industries base the derrigible hanger at Tustin Marine Corps Airfield, and not El Toro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bphendri (talk • contribs) 03:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Small points in need of editing
1) The opening paragraph says "All U.S. Presidents in the post-WWII era have landed in Air Force One at this airfield." Is this out of date, or what? If it closed in 1999, neither G. W. Bush nor Obama would have been able to land there while president.  If either landed there at a time when he was not president, this should be clarified.

2) The "other facts" section has this: "The "Los Angeles" Registration and Polling Centre Location for the January 28-30, 2005 Iraq Out-of-Country Voting Program [16]" That isn't a sentence.  What did the editor intend to say?

206.9.209.137 (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of the above have been fixed. Thank you. SlowJog (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Signed comments from article body about contaminants
''The following two comments were added to the main body of the article. I've moved them here since they aren't quite encyclopedia-style and I don't know enough to fix them, but they may be helpful for adding more information to the article. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)''

A trichloroethylene (TCE) toxic plume was discovered in 1985 off of MCAS El Toro. El Toro was placed on the EPA Superfund list in 1990, closed in July 1999, and most of the land sold at a public auction in 2005. MWSG-37 (EPA Site 24) was the source of the toxic plume spreading off the base. Multiple contaminants were found on base near landfills, including radionuclides (Uranium 235, Radium 226 and Radium 228). See [[]] for a Marine veteran's perspective on the environmental issues at former MCAS El Toro. --ElToro3071 (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

EPA's Military Superfund Sites
EPA has identified the Contaminants of Concern at each Superfund site. According to EPA, “The chemical substances (i.e., hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants) listed below were identified as contaminants of concern (COC) for the site. COCs are the chemical substances found at the site that the EPA has determined pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. These are the substances that are addressed by cleanup actions at the site.”

“Identifying COCs is a process where the EPA identifies people and ecological resources that could be exposed to contamination found at the site, determines the amount and type of contaminants present, and identifies the possible negative human health or ecological effects that could result from contact with the contaminants” according to the EPA website.

'''Military sites on the EPA Superfund list are shown below. See Scroll down the page and click on the base name to follow the link to the EPA website. Once on the EPA site, the Contaminants of Concern (COCs) and their health effects can be found by clicking on “View Contaminants of Concern” at the bottom of the first page. The next screen will show each COC and a link to the Agency of Toxic Substance Disease Registry (ATSDR) where the health effects can be viewed.''' --ElToro3071 (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood Connection
Can we start up a section in relation to El Toro's Hollywood connection? I'm referencing movies such as Top Gun etc. that have been filmed here. I think it would be a great addition to the page. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

-Proud member of the last helicopter unit stationed at El Toro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.59.66 (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No scenes in the movie Top Gun were filmed at MCAS El Toro, all the "On Station" locations were at either (then) Miramar Naval Air Station, San Diego, CA., Fallon Naval Air Station, Fallon, NV., and Naval Training Center, San Diego, CA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.157.3.111 (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

What city?
Is the former base on unincorporated land? If not, what city is it in?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

Former MCAS El Toro is within the limits of the City of Irvine, CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.157.3.111 (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marine Corps Air Station El Toro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206210257/http://www.bracpmo.navy.mil/bracbases/california/eltoro/viewdocs.aspx?doc_cat=public_notices to http://www.bracpmo.navy.mil/bracbases/california/eltoro/viewdocs.aspx?doc_cat=public_notices

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)