Wikipedia talk:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 1

Suggestion
I'll come up with more later=D.Smallman12q (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider adding some resourceful links...(to essays, policies, guidelines, infopages...etc)
 * Make a statement of some sort with regards to sites that spread malware and all that gunk.

Just put it in the project space already
Since this does not interfere with existing processes, just go ahead, be bold, and rename the page to External links noticeboard. There's no real reason not to. @harej 03:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was moved to External links/Noticeboard – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Themfromspace/External links noticeboard → External links noticeboard &mdash; This appears to be a live noticeboard, so there is no reason why it should not be in the project space like other noticeboards. @harej 10:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick question before moving, err, should this be 'External links noticeboard', or 'External links/Noticeboard' (the latter like WP:COIN and WP:ANI)? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "External links/Noticeboard" — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 11:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Everything on WP:PNB, except for the admin noticeboards, use the /Noticeboard convention. Also, before moving, the trial related refs on the first 2 samples should be removed. Another week in trial mode would probably do us good. UncleDouggie (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the other noticeboards with a intro box put it into a separate /header file to make it easier to spot when someone edits it. I recommend that we do the same thing here when the page is moved. UncleDouggie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC).
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Feedback welcome
I'm trying to get this board up and running and would appreciate the community's support. It would be a place where consensus can be established in disputes regarding external links, which often happen in isolated articles where there aren't enough active editors to establish a consensus. Please feel free to voice your opinion about this proposed board and edit the draft to improve it. This has came out of several discussions on the village pump, and I would like to get it going for a trial and hopefully move it into the mainspace. Watchlisting this page is most welcome as noticeboards can't function without a supply of participating editors.  Them From  Space  23:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this is a good idea if people have the energy to participate. I'm not sure whether editors do have the time because anyone interested in reverting linkspam never has a spare moment! For example, it is not uncommon for questions at WT:WikiProject Spam to be unanswered. I was recently wondering about this edit which introduces a link to a home page, rather than to a page directly related to the article (and the contributor added more links to the same site). I do not want that issue discussed on this talk page – I mention it because I wanted to ask at an EL noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea seeing that I recently initiated a question on WP:EL Talk that didn't really need to be there just because there was nowhere else to go. A significant portion of the discussion on WP:EL Talk may move over here, thereby letting the archive rate go down on WP:EL Talk and allowing for more considered consensus on policy changes. Some cases will end in "Should we update WP:EL?" to make the consensus reached here more clear to others. I just asked this very question a few days ago. If anyone feels that an update to WP:EL is justified after reviewing the discussion here, they should be free to post on WP:EL Talk and include a link back to the discussion here. Having a resolved example to review will greatly reduce the workload on WP:EL Talk where people currently debate both the individual cases and then the policy implications, sometimes in a tangled mess. UncleDouggie (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a quick "rah rah": great idea. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We're live
I created the redirects and moved the header into a subpage. Should we also archive the trial discussions to start clean? UncleDouggie (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and yes, I would do a manual archive (perhaps no bot until the amount of talk warrants it). Johnuniq (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. UncleDouggie (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a link to the WP:CBB and suggested same be added at Template talk:Noticeboard links. It should probably be mentioned elsewhere, too. (VPs, CENT, etc). -- Quiddity (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting this all set up while I was away :) I was afraid this board would be forgotten about during my absence.  Them  From  Space  22:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Now listed on Coordination
As of 22:15, External links/Noticeboard will be listed on Coordination. @harej 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Template for linking and logging
Usage=This template is for use with the entry log on both MediaWiki Spam-blacklist and Meta Spam-blacklist. Additionaly this template can be used to link to specific "permalinked" cases and discussions anywhere on the en.Wikipeda project.
 * Insert the oldid 0 a hash "#" and the Section_name
 * Insert the oldid 0 a hash "#" and the Section_name

For example:

(cur) (prev) 20:14, 9 November 2009 Hu12 (talk | contribs | block) (22,353 bytes) (→Template for linking and logging) (rollback | undo) (cur) (prev) 20:10, 9 November 2009 Hu12 (talk | contribs | block) (22,233 bytes) (→Template for linking and logging: new section) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:30, 9 November 2009 Will Beback (talk | contribs | block) (21,257 bytes) (→"Aesthetic Realism is a cult": some pages can be used as sources) (undo) (cur) (prev) 03:12, 9 November 2009 Themfromspace (talk | contribs | block) (20,789 bytes) (→"Aesthetic Realism is a cult": questions) (undo)
 * By clicking the Noticeboards's talk history tab, the date and time (in red) will yield the oldid # (ie. permalink) version;


 * Url will read == http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard&oldid= 324900252
 * Select the  section being logged  from the Contents menu
 * Insert the oldid 324900252 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):




 * results in your link to evidence:

""

--Hu12 (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELN notice
Sometimes the watchers of the articles being discussed over here are unaware of the discussion taking place. That's not fair, since this noticeboard is a WP:THIRD, not a place to discuss matters in the dark (no worries, I'm not accusing anyone for doing that, but I suspect it may sure look like that whenever one involved editor forgets to mention he/she brought the matter up here). I haven't seen any templates like this, so I made one, located at User:Jonkerz/Template:ELNOTICE, the current usage is link and it looks like this:

If such a template actually already exist, see this comment as promoting to start using it ;) In any other case, please feel free try it out and maybe it could be moved to the template namespace. Then if it's actually used by anyone I hope it's possible to add a notice about the notice template on WP:ELN, like the ones you see on speedy nominates and so on. Something like this:
 * Please consider placing the template:
 *  on the talk page of the article being discussed. 
 *  on the talk page of the article being discussed. 

Any thoughts welcome, cheers, jonkerz♠ 05:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, the template was more broken that what I could imagine. So bad it should not be used before it's fixed. I'll try find some time to work on a fix later today. I'm still a n00b, so feel free to take a look at it if you understand template syntax (here is a diff showing the problems). jonkerz♠ 06:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now all good, updating the previously substituted template as well. jonkerz♠ 11:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

External links essay nominated for deletion
Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. Kumioko, who disagrees with the advice against Find-a-Grave links in the essay, has nominated it for deletion. The essay is linked in the header of this noticeboard and addresses Find-a-Grave, IMDB, YouTube, Facebook, and several other particularly common websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Easykobo
Hello community, please visit www.easykobo.com and decide if it is a genuine source for information on Nigerian public listed companies or a spam link. This is because i came across that site, decided to share it on wikipedia so registered my account and added the link to a company page. it got deleted and the moderator (cutoffties) asked me to come a discuss it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ombuguys (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like solid gold spam to me... sorry.  Teapot  george Talk  16:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * New stuff goes at the bottom. It is spam.  The site doesn't tell us about the country, it's a private company's for-profit site. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Jobs in Lagos" and "Where would you rather invest?" don't seem to be conducive to a resource "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Rearranging
Someone has proposed rearranging the appendices so that the ==External links== section appears before the citations to reliable sources. Please comment there if you have an opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this noticeboard
Now that it is up and running, there should be more clarity about what this page is for. First, it should not be for having discussions here that should be on an articles talk page. For one article topics, normally a link should just be placed here asking for people to comment on the discussion page of the article. We should be trying to avoid "discussion forks", and should be trying to make it easier for others in the future to find discussion about articles (right there on the talk page) rather than seek out this more obscure one.

In contrast, discussions that cover a wide range of articles should happen here -- like if some particular site deserves to be linked on multiple articles.

The other thing that should not happen here are discussions about concepts that belong on the talk page of WP:EL, but that is a more difficult to define clearly in the abstract. 2005 (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to write some of these points in to the instruction-header of the page; you're welcome to adjust the wording or add in additional refining points if you'd like.  Them From  Space  01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I see it, the noticeboard is about enforcing the rule and clarifying cases, whereas Wikipedia talk:External links is about the policy itself. @harej 01:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding Wikipedia talk:External links. On the issue of discussion forks, all other noticeboards handle discussion on the noticeboard itself, and most of these issues are for a single article. While not doing a fork would be nice, the reality is probably that not everyone here wants to add each disputed article to their watchlist and be burdened by whatever else might be happening on that article. I think it's fine to keep the discussion here and then let someone post a summary entry on the article talk page with a link back to here. We also may not want the hopefully serious discussion here to be interleaved with the crescendo phase of whatever edit war took place prior to the posting on the noticeboard. Soliciting input directly on an article talk page is more of the RfC model. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that as a pretty bad idea. People familar with this board will always come running here when things are against them on talk pages, while others in the dispute could be entirely clueless.  Discussions about an article should be on the article because we are trying to make good articles, not save editors the non-significant "hassle" of having to remove stuff from their watchlists they no longer care about.  This is called a noticeboard, not a forum.  And external links are different than sources, like guidelines are different than policies.  Most importantly though, it would be a huge waste of time to have a discussion about something, and then have the issue arise again a month later because the talk page has a portion of a discussion (or nothing).  Regular editors should not have to add this page to their watchlists just to see if there are discussions about articles they care about.  Keep single article issues where WP:EL says consensus takes place, on an article talk page.  2005 (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do all the other noticeboards do it this way? UncleDouggie (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In my request for help, I shall follow your orders here
Hello, I see above you said: "For one article topics, normally a link should just be placed here asking for people to comment on the discussion page of the article," so I will do so. Briefly, this 'diff' by 72Dino http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=438740642&oldid=438735864 looks OK, but this one here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=438740642 looks wrong. Even if I'm wrong, I ask people to come to the talk page here Talk:College_tuition_in_the_United_States and discuss the 'external links' in question, as I'm sure they are related to the subject & useful info -- and thus belong somewhere --even if not on that article page. Thank you.71.100.187.222 (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

How to help out
There are two changes we should consider making to the "How to help out" section. First, unless I'm misreading the MiszaBot configuration, it archives after 10 days, not seven. (On the other hand, might the three extra days be intentional?) Second, since we don't have presiding admins, the "resolved" tag should be reserved for the original poster or associated with some standard of closure. I glanced through the archives and haven't seen it used. However, I have seen it abused twice (in the same discussion) by an involved editor who has yet to leave the discussion. I guess another option would be to just edit the "resolved" tag out of the the "how to help" section. BitterGrey (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know why said that it archives after seven days; as far as I know, it's always been ten.
 * I don't see any reason why resolved should be admin-only. Why do you believe that editors just like you shouldn't able to mark threads resolved?  Can't you, and other editors like you, be trusted to use your best judgment when applying it?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Given recent events, apparently some editors cannot be trusted not to abuse the tag. (As for "editors just like you," as the OP, I'd still be able to close it in that case, if we went with the first option.)
 * Please reread my post - I never recommended that it be admin only. OP only, associated with some standard of closure, or removed were the options I presented.  I'm open to others, but your Washington Monument ploy isn't productive.  I'd be more able to AGF if you hadn't been extensively involved in that case of abuse.  Someone who claims not to have checked the ELs really shouldn't have added that much text to an EL/N discussion.  I would prefer that this request for input not be hijacked by you two. BitterGrey (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And if the OP isn't around, e.g., because he's been blocked for spamming? Or if the discussion is happening elsewhere, and the OP simply doesn't think to mark it resolved?  Why shouldn't you be able to mark WP:ELN as being resolved?
 * More to the point, why should a single incident involving two people who have been arguing every time they've encountered each other for well over a year result in rules that restrict thousands of editors? The usual response to a single incident involving individuals isn't to curtail everyone else's freedoms, but to tell the specific individuals to knock it off already.
 * My involvement in that discussion has been purely procedural, and the contents of both the links and the article are irrelevant for that purpose. When the issue is procedural, I frequently don't look at the websites.  For example, I haven't looked at panspermia.org either, but my comments on what the guideline says about reliable sources are still accurate and relevant.  ELMAYBE #4 is the same no matter what the contents of panspermia.org are.
 * At this point, I'm trying to find out exactly what kind of "input" you're still looking for. Do you need someone to really, really, really add the link back into that article, maybe?  Do you want ELN regulars tell WLU that he's a bad person for boldly, if perhaps imperfectly, weeding a link farm?  Do you want someone to write a paragraph about how wonderful that website is?  What exactly are you looking for?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ELN is a good example of a proper use of the "resolved" tag; by the OP. This is the first of the three options I proposed above.  He (or she), and the "thousands" like him (or her) weren't inconvenienced at all. Also, WAID, I'll point out that the discussion of particular ELs belongs on the Noticeboard, not this talk page. BitterGrey (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Tv.com
See TfD of tv.com templates. Frietjes (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk page edits rejected: Seems like a bug
I don't know where to bring this up, so I'll leave it here in the hopes that the right person sees it. Wikipedia seems to have started rejecting links to YouTube in talk pages (not sure when, I don't link to YouTube very often). It's really a pain for edits like this one to the talk page for the Ackermann function where I was trying to use a couple of YouTube videos in a list of popular science and math examples of comparisons between related mathematical functions and physical quantities (such as the size of the observable universe). I feel I'm hobbling other editors by requiring that, in order to verify what I'm saying, they need to go do a specific search on YouTube and find links that match what I'm describing, rather than directly linking to the videos in question. -Miskaton (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to move this to the main page to help gain attention Them From  Space  03:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

External links, food recipes and spam
Could someone point me to some guidelines concerning the use of web sites with recipes and how determine when they qualify as spam? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I cant find the archives
Sorry I can't find a link to the archives of the External links/Noticeboard page. The Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard page has an associated Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/archive toc page and I think this one should have something similar or at least an Archive box collapsible or something like that. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can search the archives on the project page, or get a list here. —PC-XT+ 04:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

historyofliverpool.com
Any thoughts on whether http://historyofliverpool.com meets WP:EL? These have popped up recently in a number of Liverpool articles, particularly for railways.

IMHO, they're not appropriate - at least not for railways. http://historyofliverpool.com/railcrossing/ is a Frogger game and really not encyclopedic for William Huskisson. The other railway pages are dumbed down so far that they trivialise and veer off into inaccuracy. There's no content here that isn't in the WP articles already (per strict WP:EL), there's nothing about the presentation that exceeds anything WP can easily deliver. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Should we have interwiki links in nav-templates?
Pls see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates.--Moxy (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking for advice on external links used in place of references
Is this an acceptable use of external links in the article text? I have not found specific policy indicating whether this usage is acceptable or not, possibly because I have not looked in the right place yet. I consider it poor style and a risk of linkrot, but would like a second opinion. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:EL starts with 'Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article.. Typically, you would find a free version to upload, or maybe use these links as references (but I am not sure how close that gets to original research.  Section needs a proper, independent reliable source as a reference, the whole section now appears WP:OR.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The illustrations in the links are reasonable and convincing evidence of the poor quality of some comic cover art and the subject matter ignorance of the artists. I would be quite happy for them not to be mentioned in the article, as undue, but another editor is fairly insistent, and I don't object to the matter so strongly as to edit war about it. I would just convert the links to references, but so far have not been able to do that. I will try again. Thanks for the comment . I was aware that external links are not normally placed in the body text, but was wondering what abnormal cases might be acceptable, and if this was one of them. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If they are being used in that sense, it's also a matter of publishing original thought. They should be removed. --Izno (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for noticeboard instructions
First time here and not a regular noticeboard poster, so this is with fresh eyes. The "mark a report resolved" could have explicit instructions on who gets to mark the report resolved. I was expecting closure proceedures similar other dispute discussions. Which lead me to look for the archives, and discover they could be easier to find. Yes, something at the top of an article is invisible if you don't expect it to be there. The box could at least be left justified and/or expanded, but better to be expanded and placed below the search box. Thank you. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 15:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Khan academy video links being discussed somewhere?
I recall seeing a discussion that I wanted to get around to participating in, but cannot find it. Anyone know where it is/was? --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion about Osmosis, which AIUI is a spinoff from Khan. That's over the WT:MED direction (or you can find it in the history of Template:Central discussion I suppose). --Izno (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's almost definitely not what I ran across, but it might be related. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WikiProject_Medicine/Osmosis_RfC?? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Special:Search is pretty good at finding things TBH if that's not the one you wanted; take a look at these results. --Izno (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can't find it, but the RFC seems to be the place to focus attention at this point. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on Project!
Hello, I am looking for some opinions on a variety of documents. I am currently working with the Rhode Island State Archives to add relevant external links to articles on Wikipedia. I am wondering if I could obtain some feedback on these articles (user There'sNoTime has been very helpful in getting me to this point!) A quick side note, the Archives are currently updating its catalog system, so sometimes the links do not work. If one of the links does not open, please let me know. Also, I was wondering if some of these would be better off as me composing a new sentence and attaching it as a footnote instead. The proposed footnotes are below:

1. Battle of Rhode Island map: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/26 Battle of Rhode Island page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rhode_Island

2. Declaration of Independence: First Newport printing by Solomon Southwick facsimile: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/38 Solomon Southwick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Southwick

Possible sentence with footnote: On July 4th, 1776, the first printing of the Declaration of Independence took place. On July 6th, a copy was sent to the Governor of Rhode Island. Southwick used this copy to print and distribute a Newport edition of the Declaration.

3. Guide to the Station Nightclub Victims’ Collection: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/134 The Station Nightclub Fire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire

4. Guide to the Rhode Island School for the Deaf records and photographs: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/122 Rhode Island School for the Deaf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island_School_for_the_Deaf

5. Kings County Courthouse photograph: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/249 South Kingstown, Rhode Island: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Kingstown,_Rhode_Island

Possible sentence with footnote: The building that currently serves as the Kingston Free Library used to be the King’s County Courthouse. This courthouse also served as one of the five original state houses between 1776-1791. In 1959, the General Assembly sold the building’s title to the Kingston Free Library Corporation.

6. Rocky Point Ferris Wheel photograph: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/220 Rocky Point Amusement Park: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Point_Amusement_Park

Possible sentence with footnote: As early as 1895, Rocky Point also featured a Ferris Wheel.

7. The Rhode Island Building: Louisiana Purchase Exposition St. Louis: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/235 Louisiana Purchase Exposition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase_Exposition

8. People's Constitution: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/168 Dorr Rebellion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorr_Rebellion

Revise this sentence with a footnote from: In October, they held an extralegal People's Convention and drafted a new constitution which granted the vote to all white men with one year's residence.

To: In October, they held an extralegal People's Convention and drafted a new constitution, known as the People’s Constitution, which granted the vote to all white men with one year's residence.

9. Ratification of the United States Constitution: New Shoreham: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/176 Block Island: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_Island#New_Shoreham

Possible sentence with footnote: On March 24, 1798, a vote was conducted in New Shoreman to ratify the United States Constitution, with those in attendance voting against it.

10. First Petition for Women's Suffrage in Rhode Island: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/53 Elizabeth Buffum Chace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Buffum_Chace

Possible sentence with footnote: She played an integral role in women’s suffrage in Rhode Island with her assistance in creating the First Petition for Women’s Suffrage in Rhode Island to the General Assembly.

Any constructive feedback would be amazing! Thank you!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcar01 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)