User talk:John.Conway

hello

Hey, you back here again? New account what happened to your other one?--Martyman-(talk) 04:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I prefer using my real name (at least for dinosaur and philosophy stuff).John.Conway 23:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Rhamphorhynchus measurements

Hi John - I've edited this to get the dimensions in the same units to make it more comprehensible. But I have to agree with RJFJR's comments (Talk:Rhamphorhynchus (animal)) that this seems very improbable, particularly given the long tail; the length:wingspan ratio given is well outside that for any modern bird, with long-winged birds of comparable length having under half that wingspan (e.g. Leach's Storm-petrel, 18-21 cm long, 43-48 cm wingspan; Common Swift 16-17 cm long, 42-48 cm wingspan). I suspect this results from combining the length of one species with the wingspan of another? - MPF 09:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Soaring

OK I have set up Soaring as a disambiguation page. No knowledge of aerodynamics required. Please send me the million dollars, if it arrives. JMcC 16:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's better than what we had, but surely soaring is a type of flight and can be discussed in and of itself. Presumable animals and aircraft are engaged in the same sort of activity. I am unqualified to write such a page myself , but it sure would be nice to have one. -- John.Conway 20:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

3D Images

Well, I got around to writing a proposed guideline/policy on 3D images. It is at Wikipedia:3D Illustrations, there is a fair amount of discussion going on, so far no-one else has taken the pro 3D side so it is looking reasonably promising. --Martyman-(talk) 05:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Velociraptor Image?

Just wanted to thank you for contributing your awesome pterosaur images, and wondered if you'd do the same for Velociraptor. Chris Srnka has updated that one himself, but I don't want to hijack his newest version from the Dinosauricon, and yours is more accurate anyway.Dinoguy2 01:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That velociraptor image should not count as fair use and should be deleted. It would only really be counted as fair use if it was used on an article that discussed the specific painting or artist. If you replace it in the article, tag the disused image as {{or-fu|~~~~~}} and it will be deleted. --Martyman-(talk) 02:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Which one? The Velociraptor and Protoceratops one, or the other one on my website? - John.Conway 02:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I had the noe on your site in mind, but whichever you think is more appropriate.Dinoguy2 13:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Synapsids

Is it just me or does the first paragraph of Synapsid make vry little sense. It seems to begin by defining Synapsids as mammal like reptiles and then switches to using it in it's all encompassing form. The text is very big on being the dominant life form, too. --Martyman-(talk) 08:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's cladistic vs linnean taxonomy for you. Makes a mess of such things. Synapsids aren't my area though, so I'll leave it to the mammal guys to sort out. I'm going to try to fix the Sauropsid page, but it's quite difficult without completely bewildering the reader. - John.Conway 08:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyrights

Hey, John. Could you please use {{GFDL-self}} instead of {{GFDL}} on your images to make it perfectly clear that it is you who made the images, uploaded them and granted the copyright on them. --Martyman-(talk) 10:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had. John.Conway 11:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thought you had made it clear, or had used the template? You have used the straight GFDL one, which when compared with GFDL-self reads as though the image may have already been released udner the GFDL by someone else. It is always preferable to use the most precise template available. --Martyman-(talk)

I have used the GDFL-self for a lot of them. I appear to have slipped with some. John.Conway 11:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Bah! I had used GDFL-self for all but three of them - one of which was done before you could licence that way I think. The other two were slips of the mouse. John.Conway 11:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I must have only looked at a couple and miraculously picked ones you had missed. Oh well, all is good in the world now. --Martyman-(talk) 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Pterosaur Question

Hi, someone has posted a pterosaur question at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science. You might be interested in pointing htem in the right direction. --Martyman-(talk) 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Commons

Have you considered uploading your pictures to Commons, so we could use them on the other language editions too? The only pterosaurs found at commons:category:reptilia are kind of antique Fornadan (t) 21:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Administrator

I am an admin now, so if you ever need help with anything, yell out. --Martyman-(talk) 08:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

re:Paleoboxes

I agree about the paleoboxes, so do most other members of WP:Dinosaurs. Remove 'em if you see 'em.Dinoguy2 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ornithopods

Hello. Thank you for uploading your image of several ornithopods to wiki commons. Could you please write to the summary of the image the genus names of the animals which are shown? Have a nice day --Dudo2 21:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pterosaurs

I would like to inform you that your project listed above has been listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science, so it may well now attract more members. Also, I would like to tell you that there is a guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide which might assist you in formatting the page and arranging the project's goals and methods. Lastly, I would like to thank you, a professional in the field, for contributing here, and wish you in general and your project in particular all the good fortune possible. Badbilltucker 22:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding to the project page above a little. As someone who is almost completely ignorant of the pterosaurs, I would welcome having an expert in the field look it over for errors. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Skeletal images from your Web site

Hi, I'm wondering if you'll allow Wikipedia usage of a few of the "skeletal" vector images posted on your Web site? Those are _very_ well done. Killdevil 22:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

I take it you don't believe in dinosaurs, that you believe they were just a bunch of giant birds? Scorpionman 20:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scorpionman. The answer to your question is that I do believe in dinosaurs, and some were (and are, for that matter) giant birds.

I know this is about my Deinonychus restoration, which seems to have offended you personally somehow. But your objections really are just based on some sort of personal preference, and the drawing is backed by modern scientific evidence. -- John.Conway 00:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Like what?? Personally, I'm beginning to think deinonychus wasn't even a dinosaur, but just a large flightless bird, like an ostrich. Scorpionman 19:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, evidence like Cryptovolans[1], Microraptor[2], Jinfengopteryx[3], Sinornithosaurus[4]. These are all close relatives on Deinonychus -- and we have no reason whatsoever to suspect it didn't have feathers as well.

But we come to a deeper point here Scorpionman. I read on your page that you're a young-earth creationist, which brings us to a bit of a problem: what do you actually mean when you say animals are "related"? What do you mean when you say, "this is a bird"? To an evolutionist the question is an easy one, birds are all descended from a common ancestor, and anything that falls within that tree is a bird. It currently looks like Deinonychus is not a bird in this strict sense, although, like the animals above, it most certainly looked like one. Feathers and birdlike traits go deep down into the dinosaur family tree, well outside of the branch of strict "birds".

Please try to answer my question about what you mean by relationship when you talk about animals, and how that relates (if it does) to what you mean by "bird". If you could, it would make discussing this easier for both of us. -- John.Conway 19:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, all animals are related in the sense that they're all living. And since they're all living, they all have to get energy from somewhere. Some animals have to get it from plants, some have to get it from other animals. Narrowing it down, some are unable to survive in certain climates, therefore we have certain groupings of animals in certain areas, animals that are able to survive in the same climate. Now, narrowing it down again, some animals are only able to eat certain foods, so those animals are grouped together. It makes sense that they would have similar structures. Scorpionman 18:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay that helps a little, but I'm still not clear on how that helps us on your definition of "bird". Do you mean to define birds by means of their diet and biogeography?--(that doesn't seem likely to me.) Or do you mean to define them based on their their similarity? If it is the latter, you have the problem of deciding which animals are dissimilar enough to not be counted as birds--because theropods and other dinosaurs provide us with a nice grade all the way to crocodile-like anatomy. Which make it in and which don't? What's your criteria for deciding?

Once we've got that cleared up, we can move on to the more important question: why should we use your way of dividing up the natural world? What advantages or clarity does it give us? -- John.Conway 19:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll define them using the dictionary: Bird — Any member of the class Aves, which includes warm-blooded, egg-laying feathered vertebrates with forelimbs modified to form wings. Scorpionman 22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but there are few problems defining that way, for a start "any member of the class aves" is circular, because that's what we are defining here. Secondly, what does "modified to form wings" mean in this context? What about birds that don't have wings? You may want to fall back on "modified" here, but what does modified mean to a creationist? (It seems to me that modified presupposes evolution.) Lastly, is a problem of limits. Early tyrannosaurs had feathers, does that make tyrannosaurs birds? They were warm-blooded, and laid eggs. What about animals like Sinosauropteryx — where to they fit in? Should Cryptovolans be considered a bird, with it's functional wings, and ostriches not?

Now, there's a problem here. According to your definitions, before we find feather impressions on an animal (Deinonychus for example), there is no way of telling whether feathers were likely to be present, because an animal is either a bird, or it is not, and all species are independent — in that have no genealogical relationship to each other. This is a problem because it gives us no predictive power at all. An evolutionist however, can try to reconstruct the relationships between animals, and make predictions based on where they fall in the family tree. Hence, the prediction that Deinonychus had feathers. Or for that matter, that Hesperornis had feathers. How do you, as a young earth creationist, know that Hesperornis had feathers? — John.Conway 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Deinonychus image

Its absence was accidental, but it wasn't deleted; when I transferred the Dinosauria ref, I forgot to put a / in the old ref format, so a paragraph of text and the figure were absorbed into a ref and were not expressed. I removed the duplicate figure and Paleobiology heading once I figured it out. J. Spencer 13:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I figured something like that had happened -- pretty funny after all the craziness over it. --John.Conway 14:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sauropelta image

Hi John, I was just looking at the Sauropelta page, with the idea of making it my next project, and I noticed your picture in the taxobox. It's a fantastic picture, really dramatic. But I noticed you just have a single row of the large cervical spines pointing posterodorsally, as restored by Carpenter (1984). However, Carpenter and Kirkland (1998) redescribe the cervical armor, restoring it with an additional laterally-pointing spine directly below each of the larger ones. I dunno if there's any easy way to add those into your picture, but it would be awesome if you could. If not, it's still a great image. Thanks!

Here is an image from the paper: [5]. Sheep81 07:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Great to hear you're working on an even better image than your already great current one! Also, reading the new paper further, it looks like the triangular lateral plates on the tail should be larger, with a second row below the first at least in the anterior tail. Actually here, I'll just link you to the paper so you can do your own interpretation (armor stuff is on p.257): [6].

Herrerasaurus

Hi John,

Hey, I know you're a pterosaur guy and all, but as a professional paleo-guy, you may have some insight into (or ideas for) one of the unofficial WP:Dinosaur collaborations: Herrerasaurus. The article is in rather sad shape right now, despite some heroic efforts to improve it. I figured I'd leave a message for you here in the hopes that you are or might be interested in improving this sucker in one way or another. Ideas, comments, and outright improvements are always welcome. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Physiology of Dinosaurs

I think your new article is very interesting and important. Please don't be discouraged if people are apparently disinterested now. I say 'apparently' because as soon as you touch upon something controversial, or mention a name like T-Rex, you will have loads of editors. I have made a contribution re the plates of stegosaurs as suggested thermo-regulatory devices. I would like to help. If you would like me to work on something, let me know. I'm certainly not a trained palaeontologist, but I have been an enthusiast since the age of 5. I am university educated and know how to research and cite sources. Cheers!--Gazzster 06:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DINO

Hey John,

I saw your comments here, and was concerned. "I don't want to be rude here, but the way you react to me and other editors at even tangential criticism is very off-putting. It's been one of the main reasons I've steered clear of the dinosaur project."

John, please don't be offended at the reaction you received from Spawn Man. Criticism is important, and your comments were constructive and helpful. The project could really use your help and your observations. Please don't let your feelings about one editor sour your feelings about the project. Your work is appreciated, your illustrations are excellent, and your contributions are just what we need. The project has over a thousand articles; it's inconceivable to me that with this many articles, it's not big enough for editors to avoid one another. What's more, there have been entire months when Spawn hasn't been active on the project. Ayway, just food for thought. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 16:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's a relief. Nothing wrong with a lone wolf. :) Your comments about the project's direction and focus are appreciated, and I'm glad you made them. It's just too easy to get into that "groupthink" mode where you all start thinking alike. Hey, if there's anything I can do for you, please drop me a line, OK? Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if I made it sound as though your ideas were dumb John. I didn't necessarily dislike them, but I did disagree with the way you brought about your concerns. I felt that bringing up that much problem & critisizing a system which you haven't been particularly involved in & that has worked for many months now, was a bit unproportional for the two or three articles you suggested that needed attention. For a couple of articles, simply nominating them at the dino collab & letting consensus decided would have been fields less controversial & would have allowed other editors to decided what they want to work on. I think you knew your request was playing on the project's good nature a bit, because, as others have stated, our project is one of the nicest & accomodating there is (minus me lol), and saying that you were annoyed that noone was editing such & such an article was bound to get at least a couple of editors seeing to it that you wishes were catered for. I think I wouldn't have reacted so harshly if you had simply said that those articles were lacking & that you'd like some help, rather than the critical assessment you made of our way of editing. Considering I've nominated just under half of the featured dinosaur articles, it would have been nice to have a little bit more tact on your behalf. But in any case, I don't want us to have a bad relationship on site, so I'm offering you an olive branch for our future meetings. A good argument/discussion is good once in a while, but it just happens I enjoy it somewhat more than others & have become a little bit more able to argue forever & ever & ever... ;) In any case, I wouldn't want you to not join the project actively because of me & I certainly don't go arguing with editors for no reason at all just to annoy them, but when I see a point to be made, I do what comes naturally. If it would make you feel any better, I could remove my name from the project participants list & hand over all my workload in the project to someone else. Whatever makes you feel comfortable. Anyway, here's to our hopefully better friendship in the future, should you permit it. Regards, Spawn Man 06:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think many other Project members were upset about your comments, John. There are even a few of us who agree with you, for the most part. I can't speak for everyone though. Sheep81 13:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Sheep's comment above: Grrr, I wasn't upset about what he said, but rather how he said. There were ways to change consensus less abruptively other than saying stuff like "...the limited resources available are not being put to optimal use..." & "...As for focusing on genera because it's the easiest way to increase your FA count, what can I say? WikiProjects are not FA factories; I really don't see where you're coming from on this..." & "...On a another note, I don't want to be rude here, but the way you react to me and other editors at even tangential criticism is very off-putting. It's been one of the main reasons I've steered clear of the dinosaur project. I know some other editors just think its a funny sort of quirk, but it just makes me hesitant to get involved..." & "...So, so long Spawn Man, may we never meet again...". He could have nomianted them on the collab, asked nicely without trying to make us change our whole view on editing articles or just edited them himself.

Response to JC's comment on my talk page: Your comment "...but it hasn't done anything to change my mind about you. It seems to be your way, blow up at someone, then turn around and apologise (in a backhanded sort of way)..." is very narrow minded indeed. I've made an effort to apologise & I have remained relatively calm, despite the assumption that all of my posts are made in emotional states. Just because I use negative descriptive words doesn't mean I'm angry, it means I'm showing my disgust for a situation through word power. Seeing as how we have never really met before this, I don't see how you can make the assumption of "my way"; ie, blowing up & then giving a backhanded apology. Don't accept my apology, I don't really care. I made the effort & if you can't accept a sincere apology, then I'm not the one who has the problem. I very rarely "blow up" at someone - I'm not on a holy jihad & I don't have links to dynamite factories & as I said, people mistake my descriptive words for emotion. I'm calm most of the time really, but it's people like you who continually make my life a misery on here by listening to everyone else & assuming that I'm some emotional rage freak. Not only do I not get a second chance with you, but I didn't even get a first one! That's not very fair now is it? My apology wasn't backhanded; if you mistook me explaining how the situation could have better dealt with by you as a backhanded thing, then as I said, you are mistaken. Your comment "...because I think I made a reasonable point in a reasonable way. That you trumped it up to some sort of vicious attack and managed to get personally offended is tiresome, and I just don't need that kind of pointless aggravation on the Wikipedia...". How on earth was I ever vicious? I said I was insulted by your comments, after all you did say we were trying to be a FA factory & considering I've made numerous FAs to the project, it was understandable. Despite what you think, we've put hundreds of edits into our FAs & calling our hard work some sort of sick mechanical "factory" was indeed insulting. If you can't see that, then hopefully this has explained it. All the other guys are too nice to stick up for themselves, so I had every right to debunk your thoughts about our efforts in regard to FAs. I never personally attacked you, but you were the one who got personal by assuming facts about "my way" of blowing up at peope etc & saying "may we never meet again". I never wished not to see you again & the fact that you're making me out as some kind of extremely horrible person is hurtful. I have feelings to believe it or not & my whole time here I've been judged on past behaviour & past discussions with every person coming into a situation with me already in a negative light. You think I'm tiresome, try being me for a while on here. Not very pleasant at all & you're just making it worse for me. You think I don't get depressed because of what people say about me? Well I do okay? There. So if you think all that stuff about me & never want to talk to me again, fine. I was ready to start a good working relatinoship with you editing articles, heck I even suggested a way of improving origin of birds on the project's talk page using info from when I got dinosaur featured. But no, you don't want that, so I accept your decision if that's what you really want. Thanks a lot, Spawn Man 02:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, all the other guys are too nice to complain. I on the other hand don't like critisism from outsiders, which even you admitted you yourself were. I never mistook your words a vicious attack on me at all. And again, you thoguht I was responding with anger, but in fact I was very calm up until my last post. Saying I'm insulted, although stating my feelings, is by no means an emotional word & I think you misunderstood my words as those of anger etc. The struthiomimus thing wasn't about you, it was about me & dinoguy2 really, & you happened to get caught up in it. It all camke out at my (failed) RfA & my anger was really because of my mother's predicament in hospital where she was nearly dead & I made the mistake of editing whilst under the influence of stress. I didn't really think you'd have remembered that at all, it was such a long time ago. Frankly, I'm a bit sad that you've closed off your mind to me, I have changed a bit. Why I reacted the way I did (And I've explained it a few times now, of which you've ignored), is that you had to critise at all. You said that I reacted to your critisism badly, and what I've been saying is that there were ways of getting your point across without critising anything at all. I wasn't sinking your actual point, but the fact that you had to critise aspects of our group which wasn't really necessary. I thought I expressed that clearly in my last post, but obviously not, so I've repeated it here. Hoepfully you'll know why I reacted that way, but bh no means an "overreaction". Again, my descriptive words were mistaken by you as emotion. I think it was an overreaction on your part by making a bit deal out of it, saying I'm the reason you haven't joined in & that you never want to see me again. No one can make you feel inferior without your consent, & heck, I don't hate you at all. I find it hard to hate almost anyone, especially those who I know little about & only then from little discussions on a website. You, obviously, don't have such a hard time in doing this, and if you want to hate me, fine. I don't hate you & if you ever change your mind about me, then my talk page is always there. Heck, I've explained that I wasn't emotional, that I wasn't critising your idea, but your means & I've apologised & spent a couple of hours writing you messages explaining things from my point of view. If that can't change you from the position of "I never want to see you again", then nothing will. I've tried my best, but it's time for me to move on now from what I thought was a mediocre misunderstanding. Thansk John, and hopefully we can talk again under more positive conditions. :) Cheers, Spawn Man 03:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. Meh, I tried. How about this; If I can get Origin of birds to FA status, will you finally let go & give me a go? I've already started, if you check the edit history. Anyway, what ever you want... Spawn Man 06:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Or you could ignore me completely - look, if you want to be stubborn, then fine. But I know I've tried & that's all I can do... Spawn Man 02:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Feathered dinosaurs

Feathered "dinosaurs", could not have been dinosaurs. Personally, I think that many of these so-called "feathered dinosaurs" are really just large birds. The "velociraptor" was probably a turkey-like ave, while some of these "feathers" shown in fossils are probably just some kind of bone or muscle integument. Scorpionman 01:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi JC, I notice that you commented on my Editor Review - it's greatly appreciated. I wasn't planning on letting myself be nominated for a few more months now anyway, so you can sleep easy tonight lol... ;) Anyway, I wanted to offer you my deepest apology for how we departed last time you were frequent on here. I have changed since you've been absent and I'd like to ask if we could have a clean slate on here from now on, because as I said, I was taking the site waay too seriously before. Don't get me wrong, I'm still addicted lol, but yes, everyone says I've been a lot calmer lately and I don't want any tension from our fight to boil over to now. So what do you say? Friends? :) Spawn Man (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I got Origin of birds to the Dinosaur Collaboration. :)

Good to know, but sadly, as you may have read on my talk page, I've left Wikipedia for the time being. I'm active on Wikihow for now, but I thought I'd give you the courtesy of saying that I won't be around to collaborate with you. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi

"Sky fish" is "Unconfirmed" again in the list of cryptids... --Damifb (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi John. Yeah... I agree with you, sadly, that article has so many editions per day that it's impossible to keep under control... let's let it be... :)

--Damifb (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. About User:Elasmosaurus, he states in his user page that "speculation is the best evidence". I think he could ruin countless articles with that philosophy... should we report him to some Wiki board regarding verifiability?--Damifb (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

creation–evolution controversy

An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy FYI --Kaptinavenger (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, John.Conway. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)