User talk:Calton/Archive24

Jingle Bells
Jingle bells, jingle all the way! Oh what fun it is to ride on a 1 horse open sleigh! :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P2ewVviUh8 JonnyBonesJones (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

AfD: Kevin Surace
Could you check up on your nomination of Kevin Surace to AfD? In the article itself, there's a redlink for "this article's entry" in the AfD box. I clicked on the link in your edit summary, and got a very weird phenomenon: rapid juddering of the page, suggesting some kind of feedback problem. Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF
Calton, seeing your recent post on Deicas' page I thought you might care to glance at a new essay about WP:AGF, which is a "behavioral guideline" that should perhaps be put out of its misery. Or at least the practice of linking to it, which is an umbrella for so much hypocrisy. I don't think most of the people who refer to it have actually read it. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC).

I responded to your point
G'day Calton. I clarified what I meant by "friends" of Epeefleche. It's a bit buried in the drama, so here's the diff. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 01:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
v/r - TP 15:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Buckwheat
Don't call me "Buckwheat", that's a personal attack. Yworo (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for racist edit sumamries & general awful attitude towards others. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. GiantSnowman 13:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume you're following the discussion at AN/I but just in case you're not, I've stated there that I will immediately unblock if you will give a simple undertaking not to use the term "Buckwheat" in future when referring to fellow editors. No explanation or apology is necessary; I'm uninterested in the past, and your assurance about the future will be good enough for me. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  17:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not just the "buckwheat" term - you should not use any term which is deemed offensive to other editors. That also includes any and all passive-aggressive nicknames you bestow upon those who cross you. GiantSnowman 17:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite block reinstated
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for in the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, there is a consensus the good-faith lifting of your block by Kim Dent-Brown was at best premature. Your use of racist terminology in edit summaries is longstanding, and you were warned about this particular term back in 2005. If you want the block to be lifted, you will need to demonstrate an abandonment of the battleground mentality which you have been displaying. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked
Hi Calton. I've unblocked you per consensus at ANI. That consensus included the following provision: any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block. FYI and regards. --regentspark (comment) 19:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I only want to add that I believe you when you said there was no racial intent in your comment, I've seen it in Farscape and other TV shows, and used it as a kid myself, with no racial overtones at all. I wouldn't use it here simply because I accept that in a global community, some people will be offended, for right or wrong.  In some people's experiences, it is only used as a slur and frankly, not using it just reduces the hassle factor of having to explain myself. That said, toning back the summaries is always a good idea.  You are an excellent editor and a great asset to Wikipedia in the work you do, it is a shame to see that overshadowed when you chose to let your frustration get the better of you.  We all get frustrated.  Hell, there are times I would like to reach through the monitor and choke the stuffing out of someone acting dumb.  But I don't because it creates a bad atmosphere for everyone, and young editors in particular have trouble dealing with that kind of bluntness.  I'm a stubborn old fool, but I have to remember that not everyone has skin so thick.  Anyway, if I can be of help, feel free to ping me on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Flag icons are back in "List of Iron Chef America Episodes" article, against MOS
Late in February you were significantly involved in a discussion on this article's talkpage about following MOS by removing the flag icons. Someone waited a month and went back and put them in again today. Just a heads-up.24.168.19.34 (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ping
You got pissed off. I don't blame you. Please come back, your work is valued. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC).

external link
Re your comment here: when I look at that page's history, I see that some "Mike" is the author. I'd say that this link does not qualify per wp:ELNO #11 and #12. And per WP:OTHERSTUFF does it matter that sourcewatch is all over the place? Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - I have removed the link again per the above reasons. Feel free to discuss on article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

You have been reported for using the term "Buckwheat" yet AGAIN. 2601:2:2280:773:5461:BA2:5F71:B900 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Andalemono.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Overlinking
I'm glad this has come up, since you may have been linking all geographical entities in sight. From about 2006 to about 2011, en.WP has gone through a change in practice concerning linking—of which the date-delinking arbcom case and the associated referendum, massively attended, were turning points. Sure, some items are in a grey area and require careful consideration or a well-honed judgement call by the gnoming editor; and there are occasionally debates. But NYC and professions (unless little-known) are not in grey areas.

MOSLINK discourages bunched linking and encourages specific rather than broad targets. For every city or country link, I usually think immediately of a more specific offspring or section link as superior; but then we come up against the "Easter-egg" issue, which is that piping a more specific link with a vague item ("Culture in South Africa" piped to "South Africa") is likely to be ignored by even more readers than an explicit, non-piped link. One solution is to create or add to a "See also" section, where you'd be mad to pipe anything. I occasionally do this as a service to readers as I unlink the vague ones and the dictionary-term links. Tony  (talk)  01:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your harassing emails to me have been forwarded to the FBI as well as to Jimbo Wales. You CANNOT harass someone outside of Wikipedia due to a conflict on Wikipedia and NOT expect repercussions. Threatening to "cut you like a like a pig" is a legitimate death threat and as such, I will be pursuing all legal options. 2601:2:2280:773:5461:BA2:5F71:B900 (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Boze
Greetings. As you contacted me, I checked to see what all of this is about. First, I am not the stated IP address. Second, I must say that I am puzzled as I thought this had been out to rest years ago. Third,  we are absolutely on the same page with wanting to avoid stating anything untrue. That is why we are all here (well, most of us).

The unnamed IP editor is probably correct in that there are several untruths in his simple statement that make it libelous and inflammatory. Boze was never stopped by security nor was she painting signs. She "painted" (covered an arrow) on one sign. While somewhat minor distinctions, getting stopped by police/security lends this a gravity that is neither accurate nor deserved. The story reported by her colleagues (higher education is a very small world) was quite different, in that she was an action-oriented executive (even something of a hero to the students) solving a long simmering problem. But regardless, our job here is to report the facts, where they are of sufficient relevance and importance. As she was not stopped, arrested, charged, convicted, etc. I tend to lean on the side of letting it go.

Happy to hear your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenAngelsandDemons (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If you read the very report that you sent (or any other) you will see that she was never stopped by security, police or anyone. Why persist in reporting inaccurate information as the truth while professing to uphold the truth. Sorry, but I just don't get it. If you wish to report this incident, it should be reported accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenAngelsandDemons (talk • contribs) 22:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not change it and am not going to persist in an edit war. I am not questioning that the incident happened. It did. We differ on the significance of the incident. But there is a difference in FACT, not OPINION that must be corrected.

She was not "Stopped by Security" as you persist in saying. The Chronicle does not say that, local reports do not say that because it simply did not happen, so it should not be reported as such.

Perhaps there is a better way to make this statement? I will try to work on neutral language that does not say that. FallenAngelsandDemons (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You've still got it
Calton, I see you still have a great eye for bullshit. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

Alex Constantine
Sorry, had to decline the BLPPROD over the narrow restrictions on its placement. I can blather further on this topic if you want. But I do agree the article is problematic, and would recommend considering AfD. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Douglas Pike". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  12:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A dispute resolution thread on Douglas Pike has been opened
A dispute resolution thread on Douglas Pike has been opened. --Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Josephson/ANI
"You do understand the ultimate purpose of an NLT block, right?" Yes, but do you? From the unblocking admin's closure of the thread "The issue of contacting the media remains unclear. Such statements may be viewed as intimidating but it is an area that is outside the scope of NLT policy that was the basis for the block" DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove the redirect template
I request that the page Misuse of women laws in India has been redirected to the another page named Men's rights movement in Indiawhich is totally different and totally discouraging the creator/ editor of the page who has have spent hours on developing the same. Please revert and allow it to develop and grow as it is open for the world to give it shape as it was supposed to, when it was created. RomanSpa had marked it as a notable topic as the laws are being misused relating to women and only victims know its seriousness. Your objections may be worthy but all can be rectified but decision of redirecting it to the another page is harsh.Rajsector3 (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of women laws in India
Hi. I noticed that you have redirected the above article to Men's rights movement in India, and I think I can understand your reasons for doing so - the same thought had occurred to me in the past. Certainly the article as it stood was not very helpful, and had the hallmarks of being at least 50% personal essay. That said, I do feel there might be a case for a separate article: there genuinely do seem to be cases where Indian laws designed for the protection of women seem to be being used excessively. I don't have any particular interest in this article - I'm in England - but there have been occasional mentions of this problem in the English media, and I didn't find it too hard to google some reasonable references. For these reasons I felt that the article was probably worth keeping. I'm slightly uneasy about redirecting (and potentially merging the content of) this article to Men's rights movement in India because I feel that the subjects are probably rather different. In the one we have a set of cases where there has been a general public feeling that the application of existing laws has not been just, while in the other we have a group who are actively seeking changes that may not be so widely supported. I'm aware that there is likely to be an overlap of interested parties (and interested editors on Wikipedia), but my sense is that these articles are about different things, and both are probably worth covering, so long as we can do this in a neutral way (an additional challenge, of course!). Anyway, I'd be interested to hear your comments on this. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I think the reason Rajsector3 mentioned my name above is because I spoke in support of retaining the article a couple of weeks ago. I don't have any particular involvement beyond that, and a vague plan to do some general clean-up of the article. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank You
Hi. Thanks for your kind reply and advice. Have a great day! RomanSpa (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Credo
Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Alan Grayson
Looking at the template documentation, the alma_mater template should only have the "last attended higher education institution." It's specifically called out as a more concise option to the education parameter. Why don't you use the correct parameter for your changes? Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I had a severe brain spasm and totally missed that the template being used is infobox congressman which differs from person in that it only has the alma-mater parameter, not education. It also doesn't have as complete documentation as person, which doesn't help.  An option might be to pull the education parameter over so both are present, allowing for the same options.  Sorry I missed which template was used.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Haha, cool!
Haha, Calton, whoa, it's cool to see someone else actually on my side this time (re: "acronym"). I just hope they read your talk page here and don't think you're just me logged in now (because you and I know that we're not each other).

But they'd have to rewrite the rest of the article in order to fit what you and I were both taught that "acronym" really means (or... eh... "meant..."), I'm afraid.

75.162.179.246 (talk)

Acronym
FYI: please check your work SoNAR is neither an article nor a redirect, LASER is a wp:redirect. LASER and SoNAR are generally spelled lower case. I left your case useage and wp:pipeed them directly: LASER SoNAR. I am not sure what the correct case should be in these instances. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

reverts of Chip Berlet article
Hi Carlton - thanks for the help on this political vandalism. The removed statement is well-sourced, relevant, and cited. Are we going to have to get a mediator for this? It is bad enough that these same people have completely scrubbed the article American Security Council Foundation, but now they are going after even casual mentions of extreme right-wing organizations. I hope they do not spot the article I just wrote on Chip Berlet's colleague Russ Bellant.--Foobarnix (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Well they did spot my Russ Bellant article and, of course, slashed it to pieces. Perhaps they were led to it by these very remarks (Say hello to the Coors family for me). As Kurt Vonnegut often said, "busy, busy, busy".--Foobarnix (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * update

Deletion...
Calton --- I didn't (at least I don't think I did) start and then fail to complete the deletion form for two pages, or improperly remove the template. I started the deletion process properly, creating a talk page, and then another user on a campaign tried to "swift keep" them. I tried to get rid of her "swift keep," but may have done that improperly which may be why the deletion pages appear as they do. I will attempt to redo it if that's what's going on.

Thanks.

Djcheburashka (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing warning
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Dasha Zhukova, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

It appears that because you were annoyed at me regarding another matter, that you decided to go onto an entirely unrelated page and re-revert material I'd taken out because it hadn't been discussed on the talk page.

FYI - while the editor whose material you put back in said he was making a few teensy changes, what he actually did was revert the entire page to a version that was promotional for the subject, and apparently came principally from her PR staff. That material had been taken out (some by me, some by others) only after the issue had been raised on the talk page, and people given an opportunity to comment. When I objected to putting the material back in, I did not tell the editor to bug-off, I told him to propose the edits in the talk page first. This is the same thing I've said to you.

For someone who sees themselves as a kind of vigilante-of-wikipedia, you may want to be more careful to look at things before you act.

Djcheburashka (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Something Rouge photo
Hi - I am translating WP:ROUGE to Chinese. One thing that's stumping me a bit as to what "Something Rouge" was - can you tell me the context in which that photo was taken, and whether it was actually called "Something Rouge" or was altered to this state? Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kylee Lin
Hi. You messaged me about the above. I have no idea what you're talking about. I NEVER requested an article be created; I have never even HEARD of this person. You obviously have me mixed up with someone else. Please correct ASAP. Worc63 (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

fyi
Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop
Stop using the term "buckwheat" both on Wikipedia and off Wiki when you are engaged in heated discussions with fellow users. You have been warned of this in the past and one more abuse will result in another Ban. 2601:2:2280:F7C:8170:3C70:8571:A6A8 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

IP UTP revert
Saw this revert.

Would you like to read User talk:OccultZone? Thank you.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Please do not add legal threats to edit summaries, as you did to List of iOS devices. The next time you add legal threats, you may be blocked from editing.

The next time you add legal threats to a page, as you did to Talk: List of iOS devices, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 71.202.151.209 (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The next time you harass a fellow Wikipedian by using legal threats, as you did to User talk: 71.202.151.209, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 71.202.151.209 (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of iOS devices. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * The same applies to your edit-warring at User talk:71.202.151.209. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for further use of edit summaries to make disparaging comments about other editors, after being clearly informed that doing so would lead to another block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:.

My text is NOT showing up in the template, so it's being copied down here. --Calton | Talk 04:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

after being clearly infomred that doing so would lead to another block - Oh, bullshit. What "block warning"? What "clearly informed"?

And what fucking edit-warring? I'm responding to a peristent troll -- and an ill-informed troll-enabler -- and I'm the one blocked? Did you even bother to read ANY of the diffs at all. Good job, there, User:JamesBWatson, helping out the trolls. And no, I'm not expecting to be unblocked, because admins -- as a class -- treat all blocks as good by default, presumably to avoid undermining each others's authority. User:Bishonen, you're one of the good guys -- one of the few ironclad rules I see for Wikipedia is "Whatever Bishonen says, do" -- so I'd like to hear your opinion. --Calton | Talk 04:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Your warning that doing this again would lead to a block is visible higher up on this page, dated 19:12, 13 March 2013. Yes, it was two years ago, but when you have repeatedly been offensive to other editors to such an extent that the problem has been the subject of a very long discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and when it has been made explicit to you that you are not being indefinitely blocked only on the condition that you never do the same again, that does not mean "as long as you wait a while before returning to the same unacceptable behaviour".
 * 2) What edit warring? (Or, as you for some reason prefer to express it, "what fucking edit waring"?) This:    and just about this:.


 * "Whatever Bishonen says, do"? LOL, I hadn't noticed. But I'm discussing this appeal with James on his page. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC).

Category:Dry counties of Kentucky
Category:Dry counties of Kentucky, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 11:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country
Any chance you could move the top part of this comment into your !vote or into the threaded discussion section? Threaded comment in the !voting sections tend to explode in size and make it hard to keep track of how the !votes are going. It also resets the numbering to 1 for the next comment. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

State atheism
State atheism is a thing. It is not, however, a religion. It is an explicit rejection of religion. It makes no sense to say that a state's religion is the explicit rejection of religion. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me?
What? Fat finger syndrome? Bishonen &#124; talk 16:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC).