User talk:Demiurge1000/Archive 14

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks for the humour.-- Anderson   I'm Willing To Help  22:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"Junior Wrangler"
As for this, I stand by my comment and stand by its tone. There is nothing "bitey" about calmly stating a fact. She does not control his Wikipedia article. A "bitey" response would have focused on how her husband has abused Wikipedia in the past in order to promote himself, complete with writing essays about how it is desirable to do so, and how she should not be writing any articles about subjects with which she is involved (as she probably receives revenue as the result of sales of her late husband's books). Instead, I pointed her at the discussion that explained why the article had been deleted, and informed her that the redirect to Judith Reismann had been removed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Pub lock-ins!
I've replied on the wee babies talk page. Let's make this a good article. One line isn't a discussion. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know! Replied there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013
posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 10:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please visit my talk page. I need to discuss 2 topics with you on there.
I am sorry if I am bothering you at this time, but I would like for you to comment on my talk page on my latest 2 topics, most importantly the Questionnaire #3 topic. :D Keeby101 (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Second thought, forget the questionnaire, go to the topic right above that one. I finally cited my sources properly and I would like to know your thoughts on the entire topic now that I have cited my sources properly! :) Keeby101 (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

So I tried to make an example on how to cite a source and this happened.....
On my latest topic, I asked if this is how you cite a source and this happens

Can you explain that? Keeby101 (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That looks like a working citation. The little blue number in the square brackets is what it should look like.


 * On an article page, the reference text (what you wrote) will then appear wherever on the page the template appears (usually near the end, under "References"). If I add that template here on my talkpage, we can see what your reference will look like:


 * To better describe the source cited, you should include additional information, such as the page number or numbers that the information appeared on, and the ISBN if available. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so I will do that. I am going to do just that on my talk page and quote from the books when it comes to a certain topic. Keeby101 (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a minute to talk?
I need to discuss a topic with you. NOT THE SASSANID EMPIRE TOPIC, but the Russian Empire topic. I would like for you to visit my talk page and see the Topic that I posted called "My contributions to the Russian Empire article. It's the one on the very bottom. I am having trouble deciding whether to put another section on the article called "Legacy and Possible Restoration." and I wanted to know your thoughts. Keeby101 (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Fact or satire
This page seems like factual and more satirical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidity — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixG1995 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting... I assume you mean "less factual and more satirical", not "like factual and more satirical". I think there are a couple of problems with the article, but that's not exactly it. Some of the article is describing satire factually, not actually being satirical.


 * However, the article does make the apparent blunder of repeating "tongue in cheek" (according to our article) commentary by Carlo M. Cipolla as being serious statements by him about how economies function. The reality, unless our article on Cipolla is itself misleading, is likely to be that Cipolla actually used tongue in cheek statements to make serious economic points. So our article on stupidity should use proper third party sources that make statements about what Cipolla does indeed mean by those statements - not just parrot the statements. (One wonders about the copyright situation there too.) I'll look into it a bit further when I get more time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Followup?
In this note you said you thought you might be able to find a link to where the WMF has gone on record on contributions from minors. Have you had any luck finding that?

I see you weighed in where AK's issues were under discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales. It would probably be useful to offer that link there, too, if you find it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No I haven't. I've got as far as establishing I believe the discussion is now in the talk page archives of either Geoff Brigham or Philippe Baudette (or, less likely, Maggie Dennis). However, given that Jimbo has now apparently asked WMF Legal for a proper reply addressing the wider implications of the current situation, it might be better to wait for that. From what I remember of the previous discussion, it was a query asked out of curiosity followed by a somewhat "no big deal" reply, so might be better to have the "official official" version. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to find it.


 * Taking Mr Wales's musing to its logical conclusion could require no longer supporting anonymous contributions.


 * One interpretation could be that parents are responsible for how their minor children use internet services, and if they allow them to contribute to WMF sites they have tacitly given them authorization to release their intellectual property.


 * WRT my upload of AK's images to flickr, I did not do this to punish him, goad him, bully him or teach him a lesson. I did so solely to preclude a fine image, one appropriately licensed so it was free for re-use, becoming unavailable due to a courtesy deletion.  I made the upload prior to AK declaring he was a minor.  After he declared he was a minor I said I would delete those images from flickr if he took steps to confirm he was a minor, via OTRS.


 * I had properly attributed the images to him, and had included a link to the cc-by-sa license through which he released his intellectual property rights. I thought I had covered all the bases.  I guess I hadn't reviewed  flickr's terms and conditions since I signed up in 2006.  I had no recollection of the clause that prohibited flickr users of uploading anything they hadn't personally taken themselves.


 * When someone mentioned that clause from flickr's terms several days ago I thought I could count on common sense prevailing, at flickr, even if I had technically lapsed from their terms of service. I've uploaded thousands of images from flickr, and most of those were public domain images, which were either public domain due to age, or public domain because an employee of a US federal agency took them.  None of these thousands of images were uploaded by the original photographers.


 * The second time someone mentioned that clause, the individual doing so called me a bully, and encouraged AK to tell flickr I was a bully abusing a minor to get revenge.


 * I decided that, given the highly inflammatory nature of the complaints AK was encouraged to make, I could not count on common sense on the part of the flickr staff. So I deleted those images some time ago.


 * I was going to add a further reply to your point at ANI that AK followed bad advice. About two months passed between his question to his mentor and his uploads, which erodes for me the connection between the advice and the upload.


 * Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining your thoughts on this in detail here. I do appreciate there is probably good will behind this, even when I am fuming at some of your actions as being something I'll not say here. Being honest with each other, and talking, is better than hating each other and not talking.


 * I am very grateful to you for deleting the flickr images. It is my personal opinion that you should not have uploaded them to begin with, but that is hopefully not an issue now.


 * I find some of your actions very concerning, and I will probably be saying more about that at some point. I find it unlikely you would worry much about that, though, as no-one listens to what I say anyway :)


 * I do appreciate your efforts to move the focus away from the victim, but I find your efforts in that respect too limited, and your efforts to justify your own behaviour too stretched.


 * With respect, --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that finding respondents who aren't really interested in listening to those they disagree with is far more common than I would like on WMF projects. I'd like to think you will find me an exception.  I have a handful of respondents who I know disagree with me on many issues -- who, nevertheless I know I can trust to show me the respect of really listening to me.  I think they trust I will show them the same respect.  Sometimes those correspondents make excellent points, and I do my best to take those excellent points into account.


 * I do my best to own up when I realize I made a mistake. I do my best to do so even when that will be unpleasant, because someone has been confrontational, and accusatory.  Thanks for not being confrontational and accusatory.


 * So, if you still feel like explaining your concerns, you will have my attention. And if you convince me, or make good points I'll say so.  I have an essay somewhat related to this User:Geo Swan/on apologies.  Feel free to take a glance.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Arctic Kangaroo
Hi Demiurge1000, maybe it's just me, but this user looks a little young to be mentored by a stranger on Wikipedia. Would you mind me asking his parents if this is alright, if you haven't done this already?24.19.234.62 (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that kinda depends, don't it? Are you the kind of anonymous stranger whom his parents should trust with information about who and where he and they are, having confidence that you're thinking carefully about how and where you allude to such information? Judging by your actions so far, I'm not so very positive about that.


 * Perhaps I misunderstand, and you in fact already know his parents in real life. Well, I have no private contact with AK or with his parents, so if you know his parents in real life then I would encourage you to point them towards his talk page so that they can make up their own minds about what goes on there.


 * I would also encourage him to do the same - in fact I would encourage you to discuss your activities on Wikipedia and other internet fora with your parents, as well. They may have useful advice for you. I keep my own parents well informed about my activities on the internet, and they often have useful advice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mentoring on this website is way different then mentoring in life. We do not require parental permission for wikipedia mentoring, all it does is assist in acclimating them to this site not anything more then that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I feel like I need a lot of acclimatisation :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Demiurge1000, do not alter my comments, as you did here. If there's something you'd like to hide, I'm afraid you'll have to be more upfront about it. Thanks.24.19.234.62 (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, so you come here pretending to be concerned about child safety, then you edit war to re-add information that puts a minor's safety at risk and should never have been published on Wikipedia in the first place? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I was hoping for some decent trolling, but you really fail at this. Where's Russavia when we need him? He's being a nuisance on Commons? Plus ca change...


 * Now, since you are neither interested in child safety nor are you a competent troll, I must ask you to go and troll somewhere other than my talk page. Thank you very much. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

About a recent 76.* IP and Commons versus enwiki and whether kangaroos have wings
Now, 76.* you know by now that you are a banned editor and thus not currently a Wikipedian. You've also expressed a view that you don't wish to be a Wikipedian. This is all very well, but I must remind you that banned means banned and thus you may not post here, and per WP:DENY I've removed all your edits here. You can go back to your "Could you please go here: (link) Please say: Date hook and size are verified. I like Alt1 the best. Good to go" mailing list now. BANNED MEANS BANNED, got it?

As a consolation prize, you do get to read the discussion we have here about you and related issues. But you can't comment on it, because you're banned, remember?

The comments left by others still make sense even after I removed what you wrote. I reviewed all of your edits here to see if they added any value, and I concluded that they did not. Convenient, that. Maybe it's why you're banned.

Here are the edits from people who are not banned from English Wikipedia, and also some replies by me... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * @76.126.34.42: Wikipedia is worse - so be it. That's your opinion, and I respect it. But sorry, I have to tell you that I personally find that Commons is full of sh*t, as mentioned earlier, whereas Wikipedia is much better, although not perfect. ✉→  Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 15:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There may be something odd about  this user:76.126.34.42's edit history, but  I  just  can't  put  my  finger on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When you know them well enough, it's mainly about the distinctive unusual grammar. Until then, the banned editor's choice of targets is a big clue over time. Some hints above - more hints later.. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've observed the same thing on many IPs which have recently been commenting on matters related to me (pictures uploaded, blacklist etc.). ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 15:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be involved in a perfect storm of issues covering about the most controversial topics around: copyright, child protection, rouge admins (careful, the extra 'e' is a joke), Commons governance, Jimbo's views on Commons governance, and a few others I've forgotten. In some places you are now attracting commentary from those who both think people your age should not be allowed to edit English Wikipedia, and the same people also think that your treatment by people here has been outrageous. Which is quite unusual, not that it's likely to be much consolation to you at the moment.
 * You seem to be involved in a perfect storm of issues covering about the most controversial topics around: copyright, child protection, rouge admins (careful, the extra 'e' is a joke), Commons governance, Jimbo's views on Commons governance, and a few others I've forgotten. In some places you are now attracting commentary from those who both think people your age should not be allowed to edit English Wikipedia, and the same people also think that your treatment by people here has been outrageous. Which is quite unusual, not that it's likely to be much consolation to you at the moment.


 * Try not to over-react to current events, as there is a future way forward. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, you seem to be encouraging this perfect storm by trying to get into fights all the time (or saying things that will have that effect). It may already be too late, but I suggest you stop doing that, and instead apologise for causing all these problems, and explain how you are going to make sure you do not do so again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editing Adventure
Should be aware you appear in this 'discussion' Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure Sjgknight (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sjgknight. There's a possibility that may be related to a currently active arbitration case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: Laurie Penny
Your message: Hello, I'm Demiurge1000. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Laurie Penny seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

My edit to the Laurie Penny page simply added the phrase "fee paying" to her schooling information. Here in the UK we have a wide variety of schools, and phrases such as "public", "private", "independent", "grammar", "comprehensive", "secondary modern" etc. I was not sure that 'independent' translated to a global audience and needed clarification.

I am not sure how on Earth that can then be construed as "less than neutral"?

For the record, I admire her work and I am not seeking to sabotage her page. If I had, I'm sure that there are a thousand and one "less than neutral" edits I could have put in.

It concerns me that a factual clarification that "independent" = "fee paying" is considered "less than neutral" by you, please could you explain this?

My sincerest apologies for trying to make a Wikipedia article easier to understand for a wide audience. In future I shall stick to fixing spelling mistakes lest I attract your divine wrath.

May I direct you to a link at the top of your own page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

Of those points highlighted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, which do you believe I have violated? 1.Avoid stating opinions as facts 2.Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. 3.Avoid stating facts as opinions. 4.Prefer nonjudgmental language. 5.Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.

Boredintheevening (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey Bored In The Evening ("BITE"!), thanks for raising this question. (Article talk page is better, but here works.)


 * Unfortunately it's a little more complicated than just NPOV, as the article in question has had serious WP:BLP problems in the past as well (see for example this post and also whatever the article looked like shortly before that). So "balanced" means not just all of the things listed in WP:NPOV, but, unless someone has killed Penny recently, everything in WP:BLP too. We don't make a point of saying someone was educated at a "fee paying" school if they (or rather their parents) actually mostly didn't pay fees - it would be misleading. Especially if the person in question holds political views where such a thing might be held against them.


 * So, thus far I've been happy with wikilinking Brighton College, so that if anyone is interested in exactly what sort of institution that is or was, they can just click the wikilink and find out. However, in deference to your concerns, I will now also wikilink "independent" to Independent school (United Kingdom), which appears to give the best possible explanation of what such a thing may be and might have been at the time.


 * Although I live in England, I can't claim to share your admiration for her; to be frank, I had never heard of her before the WP:BLPN post that I link above, and as far as I know I have never read any of her work other than in the context of dealing with issues at Wikipedia.


 * By the way, we don't have "secondary modern" schools in the UK any more - and we probably didn't even in the era that Penny went to school.


 * And finally. In this edit that you made, you refer to a non-fee-paying school in the following terms; "those who enjoy sport but do not want to play within a college team or competitively, can pick up one of our recreational sports". Do you have some involvement with the Peter Symonds College? If so, you should read WP:COI. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleted reply at Help Desk
Why did you delete my reply at the Help Desk? Dismas |(talk) 00:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably the result of an edit conflict. Feel free to put it back, if you haven't already. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Figured that's what it was. I've already put it back.  Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 01:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Continuing discussions elsewhere
I've suggested to PumpkinSky that if he wants to continue that discussion, he do so at my talk page. I think Giano might appreciate that as well, as we've probably long outstayed our welcome there. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a sensible suggestion, thank you. I often avoid presuming what Giano thinks, but it's always sure to be interesting :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Kaal copy paste
Thank you dear. Yes some phrase match with my writing. Sorry for that and for your rectification. Best! - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 08:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Elaine West
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)