User talk:Frayae/Safn 11

__NOINDEX__

Robin Kermode
Thanks for moving the piece. I am researching some additional sources for the piece, though it is largely referenced from the press already. This is my first entry so I would like to get it right! one question: Is it bad form to cite wikipedia entries on plays and films rather than other sources, one of my reviewers did not like that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brivati66 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * General rules are don't cite Wikipedia, don't cite the Daily Mail, don't cite tabloid papers which are sensational rather than reliable. It is important to provide the author of a press article if you can find it, the title/headline of the press article and cite the date it was published. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Slightly Mistake Spelling
Hi actually i have written Asim Muneer But it is actually Asim Munir in page title could you please fix it for me ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asim_Muneer# DJ Kamal Mustafa (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There is an existing article at Asim Munir which is the same topic, I suggest you merge the content into the old article. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Correction, the correct article is at Asim Munir (soldier). &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Female Pleasure (film)
has been tagged for CSD G11.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yseult Williams
Thank you,

I am fumbling in the dark. I am always very slow to learn new tricks, Sean bhean bhocht — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean bhean bhocht (talk • contribs) 18:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Skycoin page
Hi Frayae, thanks for reviewing the Skycoin page. Could you please elaborate on the reason for rejection this time? Which sections specifically do you believe are not written from a neutral point of view, and what can I do to improve them?

Thanks! Peak Debt (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * All the sections except the lead. Considering this is the fifth rejection for this reason you should consider doing something radically different to the article. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Frayae, OK, let's work up from the bottom section then. In what way could the section below be rewritten to improve the neutrality? Do you think this section is overly negative towards Skycoin, and I should balance it out with some more positive commentary? Thanks! Peak Debt (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Controversy

Scam Accusations

In February and March 2018, Tristan Greene and Bryan Clark from technology website 'The Next Web' published a series of articles denouncing Skycoin as a scam. [5][39] In particular, the authors raised the following concerns that they believe are indicative of a scam:

The authors believe pre-mined cryptocurrencies are a scam, therefore they believe Skycoin is a scam because all coins were created in the genesis block The authors believe the Skycoin whitepaper is a scam because they found it difficult to understand what type of algorithms are proposed in the paper The authors believe the Skyminers are a scam because Skycoin is pre-mined and they believe the Skyminers are too expensive The authors believe Skycoin's organizational structure lacks transparency, which they believe is also indicative of a scam

Investors should always be cautious when investing in cryptocurrencies like Skycoin, due to the prevalence of exit scams and other fraudulent behavior in this new and unregulated marketplace. Research shows that ICO exit scams have now cost investors nearly $100 million.[6] To spot an exit scam, investors should carefully vet the personnel involved, be wary of unrealistic promises, check GitHub to confirm that the project is being actively developed, and ensure the project team is handling funds appropriately. [40]

Alleged Embezzlement by Chinese Marketing Team

In June 2018, Skycoin terminated its relationship with its Chinese marketing team, EVOLAB, due to alleged robbery and embezzlement of funds. According to reports, at 9:30 p.m. on June 13, nine individuals led by Skycoin's China-based marketing team forcibly entered the home of Skycoin's founder Synth and his wife, holding the couple hostage. The event was triggered after it had been discovered that EVOLAB had embezzled approximately 100,000 Skycoins over the preceding six months. During the robbery, the group extracted another 18.88 Bitcoin and 6,466 Skycoins under threat of violence.[41][42]


 * The problem which pervades the entire article, is that Wikipedia is simply not an investment whitepaper. Who cares if some coins were stolen? Why does it matter that some non-notable journalists think all pre-mined are a cryptocurrencies are a scam? Why would a encyclopedia contain details on things like how it works or what the genesis block is? Aim for two or three paragraphs of very basic information, containing no new buzzwords, an old dictionary may be useful. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

To illustrate, I have crossed out the promotional and irrelevant material below:

Skycoin is a third-generation cryptocurrency platform created by some of the early Bitcoin and Ethereum developers. The project is led by Brandon Synth, and includes Richard Kastelein on its advisory board. Compared to first-generation cryptocurrencies, the Skycoin ecosystem incorporates several architectural differences which the creators claim improve its speed, scalability, security, flexibility and decentralization. These differences include dedicated hardware nodes, a new consensus algorithm, and the inclusion of an inflationary parallel currency that functions alongside the primary deflationary currency.

The Skycoin platform has been the subject of controversy, with at least two popular online articles criticizing the Skycoin team and design approach. As with most cryptocurrencies, there has been some concern that Skycoin may be a scam. On the other hand, the Skycoin platform was recently discussed in a positive light at a United Nations blockchain conference in Geneva.

History

Skycoin has been in development since 2011 (shortly after Bitcoin was released), and was originally created to solve several alleged problems inherent to Bitcoin. Some of the original developers who worked on the Bitcoin project foresaw issues with Bitcoin's architecture that they believed would limit the potential of the cryptocurrency. These issues include:

Bitcoin's Proof-of-work system consensus algorithm rewards miners for solving complex math puzzles to create new blocks and validate transactions. This induces miners to combine forces and create large centralized pools that leverage high-speed Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) processors in a race to create the next block. As a result, China-based Bitmain controls more than 40% of the world’s Bitcoin mining power, according to Blockchain.info, which is contrary to Satoshi Nakamoto's vision of decentralization.

Bitcoin and most other cryptocurrencies rely on the existence of the Internet, which can be shut down, censored, and monitored by ISPs, corporations and governments.

Bitcoin can handle a maximum of seven transactions per second. This Bitcoin scalability problem means it can't compete with the likes of Visa and PayPal which handle thousands of transactions per second. When the Bitcoin network becomes congested, transactions become slower and more expensive.

The fact that Bitcoin has a maximum supply of 21 million coins encourages hoarding of coins and therefore upward pressure on prices. As Bitcoin's price rises, holders are discouraged from spending their Bitcoin because they believe the coins will be worth more in the future. The combination of slow, expensive transactions and hoarding of coins goes against Satoshi's vision of a peer-to-peer digital currency.

etc...

Hi Frayae, by this logic we should delete most of the Wikipedia pages for every company listed in Wikipedia... IBM, Google, Microsoft and thousands more. Every Wikipedia page about a company, as well as all of the existing cryptocurrency pages... they all describe what the company does, its history, how it operates etc. By your logic, this is all 'promotional' and should all be deleted?

You ask "Why would a encyclopedia contain details on things like how it works or what the genesis block is?". The answer is because these are vitally important points for cryptocurrencies. You might as well ask why an encyclopedia would contain details on things like how the internal combustion engine works. Of course an encyclopedia should contain such details - that's what it's for. Peak Debt (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:A.S.D. Romagna Centro Cesena
So WP:REFUND refer me to start WP:RM and you non-admin close it and refer it back to WP:REFUND? Matthew_hk  t  c  10:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Taking into account that it was not clear what you need I am suggesting that you request any moves you need at WP:RM/TR and any undeletions you need at WP:REFUND. Try and keep the requests in simple language. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's possible that you could resolve the issue by;


 * 1) WP:RM/TR to move A.S.D. Romagna Centro Cesena → A.C. Cesena
 * 2) WP:REFUND of the deleted revisions of A.S.D. Romagna Centro Cesena
 * 3) Editorial cleanup if needed on both articles.
 * This might not be right, it's still not that clear what the situation is, there may be a third article involved. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Page Move
Can you describe how did you discovered "consensus"? When WP:COMMONNAME supports "Gandhara art" and reliable sources say Gandhara art and Greco-Buddhist art are interchangeable terms? Few WP:OR or POV pushing comments made without providing reliable sources don't count as "consensus". Wikipedia relies on reliable sources not personal POV. Consider moving the page since "Gandhara art" is 5 times more common as a term or just undo your closure which is doing nothing but telling that if 50% of participants say "2+3 =1000" then Wikipedia should say "2+3=1000". Razer ( talk ) 10:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Not moved. There is no consensus at this time that Gandhara art is the same topic as Greco-Buddhist art. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * So if 3 people are saying "2+3=1000" that means there is no consensus yet to show "2+3=5"? Razer ( talk ) 11:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is simply no consensus that Gandhara art is the same topic as Greco-Buddhist art. As it is not established that it is the same topic the terms cannot be treated as equivalent and thus the common name is incidental. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have repeated same comment 2 times now without addressing the issue that you don't understand what is a consensus. "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. Now describe why we should disregard WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME? It seems like you are counting a few misleading POV comments over every reliable source that treat "Gandhara art" as "the same topic as Greco-Buddhist art". Can you point out the sources saying that they are two different subjects? I hope you are still not going to say that we need to say "2+3=1000" just because some editors wants us to.  Razer ( talk ) 11:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I put the word 'no' in big letters, underlined, and in bold when repeating my closing statement above in the hope that would make it more obvious that I am saying there is no consensus. I am not saying there is a consensus, other than an implicit recognition that in cases of no consensus there is no change from the status quo.
 * I would normally say something about the virtues of opening an RfC to define the scope of the article over a longer period than is normal for an RM, but you have a number of options and that might not be the one you prefer.
 * If you can work out the details of the topics with who supplied sources claiming the topics are distinct then a move on common name grounds would be a good idea. Otherwise it looks like Gandhara art is either a different topic or part of the topic of Greco-Buddhist art but not yet shown to be the same topic.
 * As far as "2+3=1000" is treated, there is an existing consensus to use the strict rules of mathematics which would not allow an abnormality without a good reason, for example if it has a use in quantum physics or the theory of irrational numbers where such a construct may be theoretically valid. Regardless I don't see how this changes the discussion at all.
 * ,, , and , all opposed. , , and  (nom), supported. Making the numbers exactly balanced.
 * The relevant policies are larger than just WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME, and I did of course consider both. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That is not how you make closure. I dont see any sources provided to prove that these are two different terms. Can you quote the snippets of the source? Because Johnbod only misrepresented an outdated source which cannot be considered as policy based argument. Not to mention that all "oppose" votes were mostly about user conduct than subject. Why do you think I had to vote or anyone else had to when it was already 100% proven that "Gandhara art" is the most common name and two names are interchangeable? Vote count is completely irrelevant and the fact that you went to count the participants definitely shows that you have inappropriately made the closure. You should either move page or consider relisting the RM. Razer ( talk ) 14:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * At this point your argument makes little sense to me and you will have to explain yourself better if you want a more detailed answer.
 * That is not how you make closure.
 * Whats not how I made closure? Do you not simply mean you disagree with my closure?
 * I dont see any sources provided to prove that these are two different terms.
 * I do. I see that Johnbod linked to at least three sources to support his position.
 * Can you quote the snippets of the source?
 * Yes, but I cannot be asked to type it all out from the Google Book scan.
 * Because Johnbod only misrepresented an outdated source which cannot be considered as policy based argument.
 * No argument in the RM was made to this effect. No participants even suggested that there was anything wrong with his sources.
 * Not to mention that all "oppose" votes were mostly about user conduct than subject.
 * I investigated and then largely disregarded the numerous accusations of Eurocentric bias, incorrectly righting great wrongs, POV pushing, original research, synthesizing viewpoints, lack of neutrality, canvassing, double voting, RfC rigging and the fact the RM proposer is now indefinitely blocked.
 * Why do you think I had to vote or anyone else had to when it was already 100% proven that "Gandhara art" is the most common name and two names are interchangeable?
 * The thoughts of people who didn't participate or make their opinions known are a complete mystery to me.
 * Vote count is completely irrelevant and the fact that you went to count the participants definitely shows that you have inappropriately made the closure.
 * You miscounted the number of voters above, I thought it prudent to explain there were four oppose voters and not three as you suggest.
 * You should either move page or consider relisting the RM.
 * I understand you disagree with the outcome. That will not change the outcome. If you want a different outcome then you proactively seek a resolution. I would personally recommend an RfC because that could resolve the issue, which is primarily based on the content and scope of the article. If you feel the need to file a move review then you may of course do so now this has been discussed. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Move review for A.S.D. Romagna Centro Cesena
An editor has asked for a Move review of A.S.D. Romagna Centro Cesena. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Goodness me no. The best I could get out of that was that it should have been fixed at first request. Effectively no RM was ever needed since the original move and G6 deletion of article history were undiscussed and should by rights be reversed uncontroversially. The rest is detail about the club history which although relevant later, is not an issue here. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Louis Brouillard
Hi I was wondering why you moved the above page back to mainspace so quickly? Dom from Paris (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with the article. It is an article about a deceased person who is covered in reliable sources as having admitted to most the crimes he was charged with. Clearly notable as there are a number of reliable sources in the article already, enough to pass WP:NBIO. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Edited 20:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How did you come across the article? Dom from Paris (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The button is labelled "GFOO". I don't know why. It gives a random AfC submission that was submitted less than 24 hours ago. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that this article may very well violate WP:BLPCRIME as the subject was never convicted of any crime and despite the fact that he is not living and as I noted on the talk page he is covered by WP:BDP. I asked for someone from the BLP noticeboard to check it out. Are you 100% sure there is no BLP violation here ? I am not so sure which is why I draftified it. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way you cannot call someone who has never been convicted a criminal. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes good point, self confessed pedophile would be more correct I think. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I looked at some of the sources, obituaries from reliable newspapers which openly discussed the crime aspect. For example this source (Dana M Williams and Haidee V Eugenio, Pacific Daily News, Oct 12, 2018) which I copy below. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I know what the sources said I am just concerned that as he was never convicted we are not supposed to publish accusations even if they are sourced. It's a very very touchy situation. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tricky. I don't know if his affidavit admitting to the crimes is enough to pass the policy which says there must be a conviction. Of course the article would have to be deleted if this is a problem because now he is dead there is no chance of him being convicted. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm not sure at all about this one that's why I asked for help and I wondered if you'd seen my message on the BLp page hence my curiosity about how you came across the article. Of course it's important not to sweep this kind of thing under the carpet and for the Catholic church to be able to move forward it has to face its demons so noone gains from not having this kind of thing out in the open least of all the victims IMHO. But there are policies and legal aspects to be considered. I hope someone from the BLp noticeboard will chime in soon. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Jose Latour attorney
Hi, I got your message and I'm a bit confused. I looked over the notability guidelines and I believe I met them. The previous editor working with me said the fact he was a diplomat was the most notable thing, so I started with that. Then, I was told I had to prove he was a diplomat, so I provided three sources to do that.

I also provided government documentation of his organization involved in stopping malaria in Africa and of his speech at the World Policy Institute.

Then, I was told to provide newspaper articles from standard newspapers. I did so. I also provided a TV article link and a couple of online news sites related to his music and immigration work. He or his law firm was the subject of all these, not in passing, but was the subject.

All of these were independent sources. The government and news pieces are reliable sources as all are standard news sources. To wit: I provided verifiable evidence. I provided suitable sources. Notability is not temporary as he has been involved in global politics since 1987. Articles date from 1987, to 2003, to 2006, to 2013 to 2015 to 2017. He has attracted attention over a long period of time, as stated above. I have more than 10 references with him being interviewed and/or the subject in the majority of those.

Looking at the other Jose Latour (writer) page, he only has three references..one was an online author profile, similar to the music profile I noted in this article. One was simply a book review from the New York Times and the other was a blog in the Toronto Sun that is now archived.

Please explain the difference. If you go by your stated standards as listed to me, the other Latour isn't notable as he has only been the subject of a blog once.

I want to meet your standards, but I don't see how this article can be viewed so differently than the other article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsmel (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Great, now read carefully. I have extracted all the citations from your draft, and will now mark them.


 * Primary source. ❌
 * Primary source. ❌


 * Barely mentioned, namechecked once in a list. ❌
 * Barely mentioned, namechecked once in a list. ❌


 * Primary source. ❌
 * Primary source. ❌


 * Mentioned once in passing in an article about his business partner. ❌
 * Mentioned once in passing in an article about his business partner. ❌


 * He gave a quote to a paper, this does not count as a source. ❌
 * He gave a quote to a paper, this does not count as a source. ❌


 * Allmusic is not a reliable source. ❌
 * Allmusic is not a reliable source. ❌


 * It's a book he wrote. Does not count towards notability. ❌
 * It's a book he wrote. Does not count towards notability. ❌


 * Primary source, this is just him speaking. ❌
 * Primary source, this is just him speaking. ❌


 * This is good. ✅
 * This is good. ✅


 * Unclear what this has to do with the subject who is not mentioned as far as I can tell. ❌
 * Unclear what this has to do with the subject who is not mentioned as far as I can tell. ❌


 * No idea. Cannot access the link.
 * No idea. Cannot access the link.


 * Not a reliable source. ❌
 * Not a reliable source. ❌


 * Primary source. ❌
 * Primary source. ❌


 * Mostly just quoting him and his associates, not independent. ❌
 * As you can see, not notable. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can see, not notable. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding in detail. Now, let's go over each one from my point of view.

The first three sources, government sources listed as primary sources, were requested by your editors to verify that Latour was indeed in the foreign service. Some had questioned that and said they needed proof before it could be published. That is indeed proof. Three sources of proof.

The Gainsville Sun piece is a legitimate news source that talks about the law firm and its mission as well as his partner, again a legitimate verifiable source required by your editors.

He was interviewed and quoted by the Hindu newspaper on the subject of foreign investment, so it proves he is an expert. It is a verifiable independent source.

The World Policy PDF shows that he was still involved in foreign affairs and, indeed, does speak on a national and international stage - again which your editors requested I verify. The Malaria paper again is to verify his non-profit that he started as legitimate.

The link to the book he wrote is again to verify his identity, but I see the point. Again, the editors wanted a lot of verification. Since he did publish a book, I thought it was sufficient to show it since the other Jose Latour has written books - although a different type. Those were linked to his page.

TV 6 had a story on his office opening one in Vietnam, but moved the page..it is still listed in the browser and they are a news source who has done a story, but I can see the point there.

There is another news story I didn't put in, but I will if it helps...here is that link. Judging from your comments, I don't feel you will accept that either even though it talks to the work Latour does.

http://www.tribdem.com/news/cambria-commissioner-candidates-debate-county-s-debt-trade-zone-proposal/article_2299bf16-72bf-11e5-a33c-ef330ee3825d.html

The biography is no different than the author profile presented in the writer Jose Latour's references. It was done by the publisher of his book, so I wouldn't say that met standards either. The Sonic Bids page is in the same category.

Justia Trademarks again is to verify his production company, as requested by previous editors.

Miami New Times is independent. It isn't owned by the subject, nor have I anything to do with it. It was established in 1987 and won journalism awards. Here is a link that describes the paper: https://www.miaminewtimes.com/about So, it is a legitimate, verifiable, reliable, independent source as dictated by Wikipedia policy. Latour, along with others, was featured in this publication as someone in the legal system who is a musician.

With much respect, you didn't answer my question. What is the difference in this and the references cited on the other Jose Latour's page? There are only three there..one is an archived blog post..one is a review of his book..and one is the author profile by his publisher. That is it. The external links are to his own stuff. On this page, we have verified documents proving who he is, the Inc article, a musician profile, and if you want to call the Miami New Times a blog post, then it is the same type of sources as the other Jose Latour. NewsmelNewsmel (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Oct. 12


 * It is because the writer José Latour meets WP:AUTHOR on the strength of having written books that meet WP:NBOOK, he would be notable even with no sources in the article. Your José Latour does not meet any of the special notability guidelines and frankly there you have more fun writing about someone else who is notable. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Your closure of Talk:Székely Land national football team
I am a bit surprised by your closure of this RM. You claim that there is a "clear case to start a new RM correctly formatted as a multi RM to facilitate a consistent naming on national teams of disputed countries". Actually only one editor has made this claim, and the claim has been challenged by me. The editor who made that claim has actually partly conceded to my points, since they have removed "national" from other articles where the title did not contain that word. Both that editor and you have stated that this is a matter of "national teams of disputed countries", but that is a fallacy. We are talking about members of Confederation of Independent Football Associations (CONIFA). They deliberately use the term "member" and not "country" or "state", since the criteria for membership is not connected to statehood (disputed or not). Some members are surely disputed territory, but there are other members that are recognized ethnic minorities or even linguistic minorities with no claim of territory or nationhood whatsoever. Since the members are so different, it will imho be necessary to treat each case separately, which was why I started this RM for a team that have no claim of nationhood. Their team is, as far as I can see, not called a national team in their own language. I hope you will reconsider your closure. --T*U (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I hope you do consider opening RM discussions on the other similar teams. I have reopened and relisted the discussion, make sure to explain what you just told me to as well. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! 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. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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) 16:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)