Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Doctor Who soundtracks

The OR on all of them is acceptable as it helps to identify where the tracks were used.

Could you give more detail of what the issue is. Is someone removing OR that you think is necessary for an article and why do you think that material that goes against Original Research rules should be kept? Please note that the reason needs to be a strong one because WP:OR is one of the core policies of Wikipedia.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes someone called "Etron81" is removing it and it is very necessary for all the articles "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack", "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 3","Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4" and "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4: The Specials" because someone could be scouring their Doctor Who collection trying to find the pieces of music, when in fact, a non-main episode, i.e. one that it appears in, but not the one associated with it, has it in clearly enough to be heard.

Have you tried, I don't know, talking to Etron? At all? Someguy1221 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Tried so just now. 86.147.124.98 (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI you posted your message on Etron's user page. It belongs on their talk page otherwise they might not see it. I have moved it for you. MarnetteD | Talk 17:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I asked a question at the Doctor Who Project talk page and got a response there that this was OR that needed to be removed. After I started a dissenting opinion came in so I have stopped editing to see if consensus could be reached - I was not aware of this discussion here until just now. In my opinion there is a lot of OR here - especially notes that state "variation of", "a few notes used in", etc. that are VERY subjective and should be removed if it's an obvious reuse of a cue I would have no objection to it's inclusion. I will not edit any of these articles for OR until consensus is reached here - some of my edits have been reverted by others now. Etron81 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was me, Etron, because I very strongly believe that they are completely fine. But also, not as important but I still want to point it out, I made some of the changes that you are removing myself. 86.147.124.98 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC). P.S. I have just noticed that my reverts were only on Series 5 onwards. 86.147.124.98 (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion this kinda of OR minutia is more fitting for the Doctor Who wiki than a more general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Perhaps we should invite some non-involved people to comment? Etron81 (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am opening a request for comment so that we can get more input into this issue. On these pages, should the "episodes used in" column only list what is listed in the liner notes (or other reliable sources), or can users recognise melodies and add them? My view that it should be the former, as the latter is very subjective at time, especially as motifs can be used in multiple pieces. Etron81 (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC) I think that even if a motif comes as part of two tracks (i.e. the musical sting at the beginning of "Westminster Bridge" and "All The Strange, Strange Creatures (The Trailer Music)"), both of those tracks would be counted as being used simultaneously, but maybe with a note saying, "At the same time as ...", so that a reader will know it's a part of two songs. P.S. Do leave a comment on my talk page if that makes no sense. James Morris-Wyatt (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I think that there is entirely too much trivial (and uncited) minutiae within the Doctor Who articles, from the uncited nods to prior episodes/seasons/incarnations to stuff like this. Find a source for where each piece was used - and this is important - and why it is important to an understanding of the article or subject. Not only does it have to be cited, but it needs to be referenced as to its importance within the article. We cannot use the editor's fervent belief that it is important.

Do I think there could be an article about Doctor Who music used within the series? Maybe. Do I think every track used per episode or arc needs to be shoehorned into the article? Absolutely not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple more edits removing unsourced notes have been made by another person: [1] [2] Etron81 (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

BACE2 function

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-secretase_2 currently states "The physiological function and role of BACE2 in Alzheimer's disease is unknown." might need updating there is a article at: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250401.php but it is poorly written, containing: "BACE2 then cuts beta-amyloid into smaller pieces, which in turn, destroys it" but then later in the article: "...by using BACE2 to block beta-amyloid destruction." leaving the reader confused (is it destroying or blocking the destruction of beta-amyloid?).

the articles source materiel may be more useful: http://www.molecularneurodegeneration.com/content/7/1/46/abstract the pdf has a section labeled: "BACE2 cleaves AB at 3 sites" however it also has a section labeled: "BACE2 does not degrade fibrillar AB" (isn't fibrillar the Alzheimer form?)

should any of this be mentioned as a footnote or "additional references" in the wiki article or is it still too original or non-peer reviewed to mention?

Jerusalem in Israel and the Palestinian territories

An editor has challenged that the following sources support the phrase Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories on the grounds that is WP:SYNTH. Our article on Jerusalem covers East Jerusalem as well. The sources presented are:

Imseis, Ardi. "On the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Occupied Palestinian Territory." Harv. Int'l LJ 44 (2003): 65

... the State of Israel's military occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, collectively known as the Occupied Palestinian Territory

and

Orna Ben-Naftali, Aeyal M. Gross, and Keren Michaeli, Illegal Occupation: Framing the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 23 Berkeley Journal of International Law. 551 (2005), p. 551:

In August 2005, Israel pulled out its settlements and military forces from the Gaza Strip. The question whether this amounts to the end of the occupation in this area remains open and its determination depends on factual and legal considerations relating to the notion of "effective control," which are beyond the scope of this article. Even if one assumes that Gaza is no longer occupied, our discussion applies to the rest of the Palestinian territory, which Israel continues to occupy, i.e. the West Bank including East Jerusalem, which constitutes a far more substantial area both in terms of territory and the extent of Jewish settlements.

The user has said that despite our article covering East Jerusalem, these two quotes say something about East Jerusalem, not Jerusalem, and that such a use is OR by SYNTH. Is it synthesis to use these two sources to say that Jerusalem is partially in the Palestinian territories? nableezy - 21:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I said the source does not support the statement you wanted to put in the article. Seems pretty obvious it doesn't. We'll see what others say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just become involved on the Talk page of the article in question, but for what it's worth, this would also seem to relate to the syntax of presenting the information contained in the sources. Since the scope of what can be referred to as "Israel" and the "Palestinian territories" constitutes part of the core of the dispute regarding Jerusalem, the statement is formulated in a somewhat dysfunctional manner as it precludes explication of the terms used in a manner that opens the discursive horizon of their interrelatedness and facilitates the associated problems of definition.

If the statement is used to introduce the material, the terms used to frame the issues should not embody entities that would presuppose a forgone conclusion as to the disposition of the contested status. With respect to the status of Jerusalem, "Israel" and the "Palestinian territories" are both political entities that are in a state of flux to one degree or another, and when the conflict there is resolved, it is likely that the "Palestinian territories" will have become a "State of Palestine". There is also the point that the sources use "East Jerusalem" as a proper noun.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

not related to the question of OR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What you said was By the way, your source says something about East Jerusalem (seems like a proper noun with all the capitalization there), not about Jerusalem, which may or may not include the part your source is talking about. Unfortunately your source doesn't specify. No SYNTH or OR please. Though thanks for no longer denying that you said what I attributed to you. nableezy - 21:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC) A no-brainer. Nableezy is correct. If commonsense needs to be annotated, as it often does in the source-challenged I/P area, .The fourth region in the West Bank is the city of Jerusalem and its surroundings . . . Municipal Jerusalem includes approximately 17,500 acres (70,000 dunams) of the West Bank . .Approximately 9 per cent, 1,500 acres (6,000 dunams), of this area formed part of Jordanian East Jerusalem, while the remaining 91 per cent belonged to 28 villages in this area.. Settlements there are perceived by most of the Jewish public in Israel, and by the government, as constituting an integral part of the State of Israel.' Elisha Efrat, The West Bank And Gaza Strip: A Geography of Occupation and Disparagement, Routledge 2006 p.98 The social and family ties of East Jerusalemites ar woven with the fabric of life in the rest of the West Bank.'(2)Many Jerusalemites live in the West Bank, and those who do not, almost without exception, have strong business, family, and social relations with the rest of the West Bank.' Jonathan Kuttub and Claude Klein, 'Access to Jerusalem and the Holy Places,' in Moshe Ma'oz and Sari Nusseibeh (eds.) Jerusalem: Points of Friction, Kluwer, 2000 pp.67-72. p.67, p.71 Nishidani (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC) "No brainier" indeed. Those sources talk about the West Bank, not "the Palestinian territories". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Good, so you're fine with Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the West Bank, which is of course one of the Palestinian territories, source-based, and not subject to synth objections. Why didn't you say that in the first place? A quick efficient and amenable conclusion to wikilawyering pettifoggery.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Spare me your stupid accusations. Nableezy said he deliberately did not use "West Bank". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Would you be OK with "West Bank"? --Dailycare (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC) That isnt really a relevant question. nableezy - 04:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC) I'd be OK with you guys letting some uninvolved editors address this question. I've been accused of not basing my objection on policy and I'd like to hear what uninvolved people think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC) You set the precedent. Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories. In Seddon's dictionary of the Middle East under the voice Jerusalem, the entry immediately begins with the following statement, which refuses to accept that 'Jerusalem' is one entity. 'A divided city, West Jerusalem is within Israeli territory; East Jerusalem, with a population of about 300,000, is internationally recognized as Palestinian territory, but remains under Israeli rule.'. David Seddon,A Political and Economic Dictionary of the Middle East: An Essential Guide to the Politics and Economics of the Middle East, Taylor & Francis 2004 p 347 Nableezy's formulation, you say, is not backed by his sources. Your WP:SYNTH claim is pettifogging, because many sources make it clear that Jerusalem is a divided city in territorial terms. It is certainly backed, under any reasonable reading, by this entry in Seddon, as a perfectly legitimate paraphrase. Tell me why that statement supplied by Nableezy is now untenable as a fair source-based assessment of the city's realities?Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC) To be fair to NMMNG, I'd like to get some uninvolved commentary as well. Nish, I dont think this is a case that needs all this effort to prove, Im still chuckling at it even being raised to begin with. But lets see if we can get some outside perspective here, which based on the size of this section already probably isnt going to happen. nableezy - 04:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

ResearchGate

It's my belief that parts of the ResearchGate Criticisms section do not meet WP:OR and other Wiki guidelines. Specifically, I am referring to the following statements:

Invitation policy ResearchGate has been criticised for sending spam.[10] If a user signs up to ResearchGate, it automatically sends emails to the coauthors of his publications inviting them to join. These emails have a fake sender name and give the misleading impression that they are a personal invitation triggered by the user.

User numbers The claimed user numbers (1.9 Million as of August 12, 2012) contrast to the number of followers for the top topics such as "Science, Engineering and Technology" that have less than 50,000 followers.[11] The official ResearchGate Twitter profile has less than 4000 followers.[12] The number of active users (20% active at least once a month) reported by company founder Ijad Madisch approximately equal the growth rate.

RG Score An experiment conducted by journalist Beatrice Lugger showed that with just a few interactions on ResearchGate, her "RG score" would grow to the top 5% percentile, indicating that the score as of now is barely indicative of scientific impact, and that the majority of users does interact even less.[13] Her ResearchGate profile lists 7 questions and answers posted on the platform and 43 followers as of December 03, 2012; two months after the article was published - a surprising low number to ever have been in the top 5%.[14].

In my opinion, the above statements either separately or together do not meet Wikipedia guidelines WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:PSTS. There has been a dialogue about this on the ResearchGate talk page, but no clear consensus or resolution has emerged.

Any recommendations for resolving this within relevant Wiki guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. JNorman704 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this is only one of at least four noticeboards on which JNorman704 has posted his grievance. My take on the situation is here. For simplicity and centralization, I recommend that further conversation simply take place at Talk:ResearchGate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Do official UN publications recognizing Palestinians as indigenous peoples mandate their inclusion of Palestinians?

I hope that I'm on the right page here.

User:Dailycare has presented two documents that are official publications of the UN in response to the RfC: Should the Palestinians be included on the list on the basis of tacit UN recognition since at least 2009? I filed on 14 December 2012.

This RFC is about whether the Palestinians should be added, not whether Jews are indigenous. Concerning the Palestinians, they're described as indigenous at least here: Bedouin Palestinians and this document (THE INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE) seems to repeatedly refer to the Palestinians as a whole as the indigenous population of Palestine. Based on these sources, I'd say that the UN does consider the Palestinians indigenous, which seems to be even a slightly obvious point. --Dailycare (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MRGI,,YEM,,49749c7dc,0.html[User talk:Dailycare|talk]]) 15:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Another User:Evildoer187 has been demonstrating what seems to be a basically irrational response to the sources, repeatedly labeling one of them as OR, while claiming that the other is inadmissible because it is "outdated", having been published in 1981, "more than a decade before the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues was established".

The RfC was filed on the basis of my discovery of a list of topics on the UNPFII webpage that basically corresponds to Chapters I-VI of the total of VII chapters comprising the SOWIP report of 2009, in which two distinct references are made, one with regard to Palestinian Arabs and the other Bedouin Arabs, in Israel as indigenous peoples. Since the website and report are both published by the same UN body, the are correlated sources, which seemed to indicate at least tacit recognition.

Another User:Moxy had early posted a comment that,

As per all the other RfC on the matter since 2006- both out until recognized by an official indigenous body - so no change from the norm.Moxy (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

but he seems to have difficulty in acknowledging the sources presented by Dailycare as fulfilling that criteria--whatever relevance the criteria may or may not have.

The RfC has gone somewhat quite, with fewer comments from a smaller sampling of editors than I had hoped, so any input would be welcome. The topic is obviously controversial, but I don't think that justifies the ignoring of viable sources such as the UN publications submitted for comment. --Ubikwit (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Adjusting for inflation

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but is there an established procedure for adjusting for inflation? For example, the article on the Bath School disaster has the following sentence (emphasis mine):

"The Red Cross also managed donations sent to pay for both the medical expenses of the survivors and the burial costs of the dead. In a few weeks, $5,284.15 (about $70,698 today) was raised through donations, including $2,500 from the Clinton County board of supervisors and $2,000 from the Michigan legislature."

There are several ways of adjusting for inflation, and they all become out of date rather quickly. It's important to provide context to monetary amounts, but what is the best way to do it? Andrew (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Science as a religion

An editor, Timpo, insists on claiming that science "can be considered a religion" (in several different phrasings so far, but the implication is the same) in the Religious offense article (section: Science). We keep going back and forth with it, with me tagging and editing and him/her untagging with what I think are minor changes and don't really take care of the issue. There's discussion in several sections here Talk:Religious_offense#References. I think the main problem is that Timpo thinks that the ref s/he provided (a writing by Richard Dawkins) is sufficient to make the statements, while I think it's original research/improper synthesis. We're just repeating the same stuff at each other now and Timpo has resorted to policing my tone, so I'd like someone neutral to have a look over this issue. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a rather uninformed POV, but you might want to check Thomas Kuhn, if your not already familiar with the author.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Calling an allegation a "claim"

collapsed section by blocked sock per WP:DENY

The dispute concerns an online petition which allege some things about certain clinics in Ecuador. I want those allegations to be preceded by "they claim" so that Wikipedia doesn't present the opinion of the authors of the source as fact. The source: [3] The edit history of the dispute with MrX: [4] Here is the discussion with MrX: [5] Zaalbar (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Petitions on change.org are basically user-submitted content which is intentionally running in the opposite direction from WP:NPOV. (They're not trying to describe a situation neutrally, they're trying to get people angry enough to sign a petition). So, it's not just an OR problem - we should be very careful about using that as a source for anything. bobrayner (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC) I suggest the discussion be carried on at Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Ecuador#Self-revert before it is brought here. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) WP:CLAIM may also be helpful. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC) So should the allegations in the petition be removed because of POV issues or should they be preceded by "allege", not "claim"? Zaalbar (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC) As long as we are examining NPOV issues and not NOR issues, I do need to point out one thing... re: "user-submitted content which is intentionally running in the opposite direction from WP:NPOV"... It is important to remember that sources are allowed to have a POV and are not subject to Wikipedia's NPOV policy... the point of our NPOV policy is to say that we (Wikipedia editors) are not supposed to insert our own POV into our articles. That means we must represent all of the various points of view and biases that exist in our sources with neutrality. Now... part of presenting things with neutrality is assigning things DUE WEIGHT. We have to ask: Do the allegations made on the website represent the view of a tiny minority or a more mainstream views. If the former, then we should probably not mention them at all. If the latter then we should mention them as being the opinion of a certain person or group (and attributing that opinion in the article text). In that case, it is something of a judgement call as to whether to use "allege" or "claim"... other phrases can be used as well (such as: "X is of the opinion that blah blah blah" or "X believes that blah blah blah" or "according to X, blah blah blah"... etc.) Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Yes, inserting wording for "claimed", "alleged" or similar would just need evidence to be brought forward showing that the existence of the starving, abuse and torture is reasonably disputed. Formerip (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC) There are follow up sources with information regarding these clinics so I think the petition should stay. However, from the sources it's clear that not all of the 200 clinics are known for torturing, as only a few have been closed down and there have only been former patient complaints from some of them. I'll put in "allege" since it's clearly disputed that all 200 clinics are known for "starving, abusing, and torturing patients". Zaalbar (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC) If the torture etc undoubtedly happened but only at some clinics, the correct thing to do is to use the clarifying phrase "some clinics", rather than "claimed". Formerip (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) True, but the source claims over 200 clinics, while the other sources used show that only a fraction of them have been shown to be. Therefore the claims in the source either has to be removed or clearly shown to be only an allegation. Zaalbar (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC) So the article should give the full picture: ...some clinics, claimed by Organisation X to be as many as 200, although only a fraction of this number has been officially recognised (or something like that). Formerip (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC) That sounds good. I can't make the change though since I've already done 3 reverts on that page so close together. Zaalbar (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC) If you wish to rewrite this content to add weasel words such as claim, allege, purport, etc. you need to produce sources to support the dubiousness you are trying to introduce. There are several sources (besides change.org), from credible news organizations, that corroborate the material as it is written. We don't get to decide on our own that we doubt the reliable sources and then introduce that doubt into articles in Wikipedia to push an a particular point of view, which by the way, you seem to be trying to do in a number of LGBT related articles. - MrX 23:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Please look up a definition of "weasel words". You keep getting the definition wrong and it's interfering with your editing. Attributing an opinion by a specific group as an opinion of that specific group is not using weasel words. I don't need to produce sources because none of the sources used in the article allege that there are over 200 clinics which are known for "starving, abusing, and torturing patients". That is a claim only in the petition. Can somebody revert MrX? The article has been representing an opinion as fact for too long now. Zaalbar (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems all my main sources are wrong....

I posted this at the Help Desk and they suggested i bring my issues here. My post there was:

I have a strange problem. I decided to pick back up my series of presidential oval office desks, which I have been working on and off with for a few years now (List of Oval Office desks), and I was about to start a new article about the Theodore Rosevelt desk when I hit a major snag. I dug up this article stating that Truman moved FDR's desk out of the Oval Office which runs counter to every reference i have about the number of desks that have been used in the Oval Office. I dug a little deeper and found this picture on commons showing that yes, FDR had a different desk than what is declared in the sources. How do I deal with this problem? The desk FDR had does not appear to have a name, so what do I call it? Since the references are obviously not right can i use any of the information in them? Is this whole thing original research? I guess I just need another set of eyes to look at all of this to see if I am crazy and what should be done.

--Found5dollar (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

world's largest flower article Rafflesia

I am posting this because the article on "the world's largest flower "Rafflesia is incorrect. While the article itself on Rafflesia is accurate, Rafflesia is not the worlds largest flower. Amorphophallus sp. is considered the world's largest. A picture and more detail is posted on my website http://www.facebook.com/Wi.thyme

Claims/facts based on silly messages on Twitter

It would be interesting with your expert opinions in the discussion on Talk:Beneath Your Beautiful. Thanks. Nording (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

SYNTH question regarding meanings of foreign words

There is a minor content dispute over at Kuroneko. The article is about a Japanese film named Yabu no naka no kuroneko in Japanese, and simply Kuroneko in English. WP:NCFILM says that we should include a translation of the titles of foreign films in cases where the English title is not already a translation, even when no literal translation has appeared in reliable sources.

The dispute rises from the meaning of the phrase yabu no naka. It technically means "in the middle of a bamboo grove", but in everyday Japanese usage it means "an inability to discern the truth of a matter; mysterious; obscure".[6][7][8] The idiomatic usage is derived from Akutagawa Ryūnosuke's story In a Grove, and predates the film by several decades.

The user on the other side of this dispute has insisted that I need a reliable source that links the phrase yabu no naka to the film or else it is SYNTH[9], but this seems a bit unreasonable, since the phrase is part of the title of the film.

Any objective input would be most appreciated.

elvenscout742 (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A glance at the plot summary will demonstrate the film is set in a bamboo grove. The bamboo is a major visual motif of the film. However, originally I tagged the article with the "original research" tag because the user claimed that the title of the film was a reference to the Akutagawa story, not because of his fanciful translation. I believe that claim that it is named after the story is a clear-cut case of WP:SYNTH. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)