User talk:Rathfelder

A page you started (Medworxx) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Medworxx, Rathfelder!

Wikipedia editor Lakun.patra just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great Job!!!

To reply, leave a comment on Lakun.patra's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hey there

Thanks for taking a look at an article I created: Bacteroides ureolyticus. I generally don't revert anyone's edits I don't intend to revert yours. But I was wondering why your edit summary stated that the article isn't a stub. Can you elaborate. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me more substantial than a stub. It's a subjective judgement. I shan't be offended if you revert it. I'm working through 1000 medical stubs and trying to put them into more specific categories so that people who know more about the subjects than I do might concentrate their efforts where it might do some good. Rathfelder (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Well then, bless you! And I take your 'unstubbing' as a definite complement! I have been reading your talk page and my concerns about the direction that the application of MEDRS is going is troubling. I am going to be 'a talk page stalker' here and follow the comments about your editing. I appreciate your challenging comments and your courteous and civil tone. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very muchRathfelder (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Input requested

I was enjoying helping make improvements about the company Second Sight on its draft page, but then discovered that much of my content and references supporting the content have been removed. Your input about this is requested. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  03:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You could try reinstating it. I think you will find it the stuff that Doc James removed. He objects to any mention of the company's plans to use its prosthesis for people with macular degeneration. Your contribution would be helpful.Rathfelder (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Medical dictionary definition articles

Hi! I see you're marking a number of medical articles for deletion because they are only dictionary definition sub-stubs without any longer-term promise of becoming proper articles. While I don't have a problem with that, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, could you please consider marking these pages with {{move to wiktionary}} instead, where dictionary definitions are welcomed? -- The Anome (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Certainly will. I didn't realise I could do that. Thank you very much.Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

Hi - I notice that you have moved Darent Valley Hospital to Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust. What is your thinking behind this? Surely the hospital will last a lot longer than the trust? I suppose in an ideal world we would have separate articles - one on the trust and one on the hospitals. Thoughts welcome. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a problem area, and you are, of course right that the physical hospital may well last longer than the Trust. But information about performance, quality etc. is only available at Trust level. With Trusts that run more than one hospital it makes sense to have 2 separate articles, and if this Trust is dissolved we may then have to make a new article for the hospital. But most of the information in the present article is actually about the Trust, and there is already an article about the old Darenth Park Hospital. If you think there is sufficient material for an article about the new hospital perhaps we should start that. Rathfelder (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. Many thanks for that. Dormskirk (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Assess before removing stub templates

Before removing a stub template from an article you should first assess it to see if it at least meets start class, if it does update the boilerplate on the talk page before or soon after you edit the article. Contrary to the edit summary you left with this edit quality is an important factor, otherwise start class could be reached simply by adding cruft. BTW, AngusWOOF (talk · contribs) completed the assessment after your edit. Regards. – Allen4names (contributions) 18:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Being a stub is a measure of quantity, not of quality."Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they have significant problems or are noticeably incomplete." Arthonia would be pretty much the biggest stub in the encyclopedia. Furthermore there are many biological articles of similar structure - a brief note on the genus and a long list of species. There isn't a great deal more to say about a genus, other than to enumerate the component species.Rathfelder (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you got the text you quoted from Wikipedia:Stub did you not? I suggest you re-read it particularly the sub-section "How big is too big?" I there is not enough prose the article should be considered a stub even if it is several kilobytes in size. Regards. – Allen4names (contributions) 20:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I've read it often. I spend a lot of time working on stubs. It is clear that there is no rule. Its a matter of judgement. But the guidance, such as it is, suggests that list should not normally be regarded as stubs. And in this context there isn't a great deal to say about a genus other than to provide a list of its members. I can't see what is achieved by calling this a stub.Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Given what I found in a Google search of Arthonia I would consider that Wikipedia article to be grossly incomplete, list of no list. Perhaps Sasata (talk · contribs) could explain this better. Regards. – Allen4names (contributions) 02:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the articles is finished, and I am not competent to say if it's a good article, but most of the material you have directed me to is about the individual species as far as I can see. They need individual articles. A reasonable rule of thumb is that a stub is less than 1500 characters, or a couple of screenfuls of information. This is 38463 characters and about 10 screenfuls. And some pictures. It's the biggest stub in the encyclopedia. Rathfelder (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

from WP:Stub: "Similarly, stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone – lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub." (my bolding). Sasata (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think in this case you are wrong. Should we seek other views?Rathfelder (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Sasata (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we should do that. Can you guide me?Rathfelder (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems like you are challenging the stub guidelines, in particular the sentence from WP:Stub that I've given above. You might want to present your position on the talk page of WP:Stub and see if others editors are in agreement. From there, if a consensus is formed that your position is correct, that sentence would be amended. Sasata (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion about lists at [[1]]

and, which I had forgotten, a discussion I started earlier: [[[2]] Rathfelder (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The first discussion is about a different matter entirely (marking list article as stubs or not), while you didn't really get a useful answer to your question in the second link. Perhaps start a new discussion, linking specifically to the Arthonia article as an example. Before you do you, perhaps an appeal to logic might help. Consider two hypothetical articles: (1) a genus article containing the text "Hypothetica is genus of fungi in family Madeupia." and then lists its four species; (2) a genus article containing the text "Hypothetica2 is a genus of fungi in family Madeupia2." and then lists about half of its 1000 species. Using your stub categorization logic, article 1 would be correctly labeled a stub, while article 2 would be labeleled a start solely because of the weight of its unannotated list, even though it has proportionally less encyclopedic coverage than article 1. Does this outcome seem correct to you? Sasata (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, regarding your statement "there isn't a great deal to say about a genus other than to provide a list of its members" please see Hydnellum, Cyathus, and Phellodon for just a few of many contrary examples. Sasata (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I may be wrong about genus articles - but there are a lot of genus articles which consist almost entirely of lists of species. My personal view is that being a stub is primarily a measure of quantity. An article may be very bad - and I would agree that an article which purports of be a list of something which omits half the items it should contain (without saying so) is a bad article - without being a stub. I am a humble stub sorter. I am not competent to pronounce on the quality of botanical articles. But I don't think they should be marked as stubs just because they are largely in list form. The same arguments apply to articles about football teams and the like. They often contain a lot of information in tabular form. That seems much more useful than trying to convey the same information in prose. I think articles should be considered as a whole. Excluding consideration of pictures, tables and the like seems perverse. Rathfelder (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If your "personal view is that being a stub is primarily a measure of quantity", then that is at odds with what is written in the guideline page, and you'll have to gain consensus to have the guidelines changed. Sasata (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the guidelines are rather ambiguous on this point. But I don't think anyone would assert that quantity is an irrelevant consideration. And the points you make are about material which is not prose. If that long list of species was turned into prose would you still say it was a stub?Rathfelder (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Tagging Categories for Discussion

Hello,

Thanks for contributing nominations to the CFD discussion. When you submit a category, it's required that you tag the top of the category to let other editors know it's being discussed. WP:CFD is a good resource here. If they are not tagged--even if the other editors agree with you--the closing admin will not be able to take action. I just didn't want to see you waste your time so you should go add those now.

Happy editing! RevelationDirect (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very muchRathfelder (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If you don't tag every category under discussion and list them individually at a CfD discussion, they can not be deleted, merged or renamed, regardless of the outcome of the discussion. Proper notice has to be given, ideally to the creator of the category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Associations by country

Note that I reverted your last edit at Category:Professional associations by country as possible vandalism. It seems you're trying to empty out the Category:Associations by country just the way you did with Category:Organizations by country and subject before. Again: stop it to avoid getting into troubles earlier or later. --PanchoS (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The headnote for the category says "This category is for associations in an informal sense, in that any non-profit group which has not incorporated may be thought of as an association." I don't think professional associations fit that definition at all. But you are right that I don't think much of the category "Associations". It's a complete overlap with Category:Clubs and societies, of which it is a subcategory. It has no defining feature except the use of the word "Association" in the title.Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You (Rathfelder) are still emptying out categories which you don't like. If you don't like category "Associations", take it to cfd. If you don't like Category:Organizations by subject, take it (the whole thing) to cfd. In the meantime, a subcat of Category:Organizations by subject which is also a subcat of Category:Organisations based in the United Kingdom is certainly in Category:Organisations based in the United Kingdom by subject. Oculi (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have done [3] but with little interest. I have no objection to the category of Associations in itself. My objection is to ambiguous categorisation. I don't think we should have "Associations" co-existing with "Clubs and Societies" so its not clear where things go. Similarly, if we can agree that all subcategories of organisations should go in to a tree based on Category:Organizations by subject as well as one based on Category:Organizations by location - something you seem to be doing - then I would be quite happy. My problem is not being able to find categories when I look for them.Rathfelder (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to agree that all subcategories of organisations should go in to a tree based on Category:Organizations by subject as well as one based on Category:Organizations by location. Oculi (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Good. Do you think we need to raise this in some public forum? Will people get angry if we just do it? I don't think such a strategy would produce a lot of empty categories.Rathfelder (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Please do not use Wikipedia to promote businesses, such as you did in the article Healthcare in Switzerland. Wikipedia is not the Yellow pages. If you want to list a company for potential customers to find, please consider alternative outlets. Thank you. Also not valid for Health in Europe. ZH8000 (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@ZH8000: No company was mentioned, let alone promoted. The diff referred to the health care system of an entire country. Please read more carefully before criticising and reverting other editors' work. PamD 09:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, reading more carefully (oops) I see it's the source you're claiming is being promoted, rather than the content. I don't see that being a private company makes a source invalid - most publications other than government publications are published by private organisations. Why do you think that the Euro health consumer index, which has a Wikipedia article, is not a WP:RS? PamD 09:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not claim RS, did you recognize!? -- ZH8000 (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If we cannot use private publications - such as newspapers - where are we supposed to find information? You could argue that the article about Health Consumer Powerhouse is a bit soapy, but the information they produce appears to be widely accepted.Rathfelder (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether you promote a company's name or their product does not really make a difference. It is still promoting. And one of the Swedish company Health Consumer Powerhouse 's product is their Euro health consumer index, in other words: a ranking list. And since there is nobody to testify their independence, we can't know how serious their supposedly "independent" survey is, since they are not obliged to provide any evidence. BUT Health Consumer Powerhouse pretend to do so, even with their company name. -- ZH8000 (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't accept that quoting their publication is promoting the company, any more than quoting the Daily Mail is promoting that.Rathfelder (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You may not want to accept it, but it is no WP:RS and not even its relevancy has been confirmed by a third-party source. Note also that there is a difference between a quality newspaper (like Times, FT, Independent, or Telegraph) that is at least reliably edited vs. the press releases of a company serving its immediate shareholder value. Daily Mail is not considered a quality newspaper, but may qualify as a WP:RS in some cases.
ZH8000 was right to remove that paragraph per WP:NOTRS and WP:UNDUE. If you can prove the company's press release has been widely reproduced by WP:RS, you may reinsert the paragraph. (talk page watcher) PanchoS (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

How many do you want?

• Guardian
• Times of Malta
• RTE
• Irish Times
• The Times

Do you have evidence that the Health Consumer Powerhouse has shareholders? How does it make money? There is an article about it, but it only reproduces the chart. It doesn't say anything about the organisation. It appears to give away its main product.

I think you are quite wrong to suggest that the Daily Mail is not regarded as a reliable source. You or I may not approve of its point of view but there is no suggestion that it is not a reliable source of facts. It's a mainstream newspaper.

Rathfelder (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Health care in Switzerland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ZH8000 (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I was following PanchoS advice. I produced reputable references. I don't see what the problem is.Rathfelder (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't. You just reverted ZH8000 introducing the same press release which is indeed a bit WP:SOAPy and not inherently reputable unless cited by reliable mainstream media or medical publications. --PanchoS (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't found anything in Swiss media -probably because of language issues, but I provided five examples of mainstream media in other countries taking up the story, and a lengthy response from the Irish minister of health. I think that establishes the credentials of the report. Rathfelder (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

An edit war is carefully defined. This isn't one. I am waiting for you to engage in the discussion of the points I've made. And preferably without any more threats.Rathfelder (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Northern Ireland Federation of Sub-Aqua Clubs and British Underwater Sports Association

Hi Rathfelder, I noticed that you removed the Category:Supraorganizations from both the above articles. Can you please advise why you have done particularly both organisations meet the description of a supraorganisation as per the category page, i.e. membership is made of organisations rather than individuals? Please reply here. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I dispute the definition, and I have altered the article. I can't see any sign of anyone outside wikipedia using it in this sense. I don't think that is how the word is used in the real world. In the real world the term Supraorganization seems to imply some sort of overarching function, such as regulation. There are immense numbers of organisations whose members are other organisations. All the football leagues in the world for a start, and many religious and academic organisations. I am trying to make some sense of the category. Specifically I don't see that being composed of other organisations is a defining characteristic of organisations of the kind you mention, or indeed of most sporting organisations. So I can't see that anyone looking for a sub-aqua organisation would be looking for it under this category. Do you think anyone would refer to either as a supraorganisation? But I think Sports governing bodies probably do fit here. I know nothing about underwater sports, and you are entirely free to disagree with me and revert. But perhaps you could tell me if there is any organisation in that area which fits my view of the definition? Is there a rule making or standard setting organisation body?Rathfelder (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights in the word "Supraorganisation". A search online suggests that this could be an unintended WP by-product. A focused google search found the use of the word in texts concerned with international governance (i.e. treaties) and agencies within government. Generally, the word was spelt as supra-organization or supra organization. Also, none of the texts that I viewed were specifically concerned with supraorganizations. There may be some managerial texts that briefly discuss the concept. In response to your questions, I advise the following. Firstly, I think the term would only be used within academia; in other fields, terms such as peak bodies and umbrella organisations would probably prevail. Also, I think the prefix “supra” is not widely. Secondly, sports governing bodies do have a regulatory function in respect to sports rules. In respect to underwater sports, I think the best example of a supraorganisation would the Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques. Thirdly, a example of a standard setting organisation body would be the International Organization for Standardization. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That is most helpful. I will continue my efforts to reduce inappropriate use of the category.Rathfelder (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Industry trade groups by country

Dear colleague, I really appreciate your work on the categorization of organizations. However, if you disagree with naming and/or scope of a particular category scheme, this is not the way to do it. I don't know how often I have to remind you that WP:SNEAKY efforts at systematically circumventing the proper processes, such as WP:CFD are a serious breach of policy, no matter whether genuinely bad-faithed or not. This is our policy, and I'm kindly asking you to understand that you are required to adhere to it.
If you dislike the naming scheme or scope of a category, bring it up to WP:CFD, ping me or whomever, but don't systematically dismantle category schemes. Thanks. --PanchoS (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't remember what I was trying to do at the time. But there are two sets of categories one Category:Business organizations by country and the other Category:Industry trade groups by country. They overlap. I think I thought the Business organizations were more appropriate for some of the sub categories. So, for example in Turkey there is only one article [[Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey], and I don't think it is really an Industry trade group. Surely moving articles into a more appropriate category is allowed? I do it every day. That doesn't mean I object to the existence of a category, just that I think it isn't the most appropriate. Rathfelder (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course, moving articles into a more appropriate category is fine. If there are two sets of categories that seem to be overlapping, you would either go and make one the subcategory of the other, or put both of them into a larger third category, or come up with a better definition/naming scheme, or nominate them for merging. Creation of new subcategories is unrestricted, moving/renaming is controversial, deletion needs consensus, so in many cases you would need a WP:CFD. But what you did here is completely dismantling an established scheme and leaving it broken, so it would eventually disappear one by one. Hard to believe you individually removed the container category from 14 child categories without being aware of the consequence, or without exactly aiming at emptying the container category, so it would end up getting deleted per WP:C1. But let's assume you just didn't care: Are you seriously arguing that Category:Industry trade groups based in the United States or Category:Industry trade groups based in the United Kingdom don't belong in Category:Industry trade groups by country??? --PanchoS (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No I'm not. And I cant work out what I was trying to do, so I apologise. But I approve of your proposal to improve the situation.Rathfelder (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The London Clinic

Hi Rathfelder,

I saw that The London Clinic's wiki page mentions a 2 star rating from the Food Standards Agency, I wanted to remove this as it is now out of date content. (The London Clinic has now been awarded 5 stars) Do you see any issue with removing the 2 star sentence and only mention the most recent 5 star rating?

Thanks, Alastair — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLondonClinic (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we should leave it. It's, among other things, evidence of improvement. And if you are part of the clinic you shouldn't be editing this article.Rathfelder (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

WTF are you playing at?

on my user talk page? -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• You are not entitled to add non-existent categories to your user page.Rathfelder (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you leave user talk pages alone. -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm deleting red categories. I see no reason to treat user pages differently. What you are doing is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia:User categories.Rathfelder (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please show me the consensus that redlinked categories on user pages are a problem. What I think is a problem is messing with people's userpages in an unfriendly manner. (It doesn't appear that you are requesting that people remove such categories, but are merely doing so yourself inappropriately.) LadyofShalott 13:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User categories: "user categories should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices.[7] If a Wikipedian wishes to have such a notice, they may edit their user page and add the notice in some other way (such as by adding text or a userbox), rather than inappropriately creating a category grouping.[8]"Rathfelder (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

... that I reverted you again. Red links on a user page are an expression of the user, I have two myself, intentionally so. As long as they are not offensive, I see no need to remove them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User categories: "user categories should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices.[7] If a Wikipedian wishes to have such a notice, they may edit their user page and add the notice in some other way (such as by adding text or a userbox), rather than inappropriately creating a category grouping.[8]"

Please go do something more productive. Your edit warring at User:John Carter and elsewhere is just going to land you in trouble. You're citing a guideline, not a policy, and it is one that is widely ignored. - Sitush (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring is not something I do. You may choose to ignore the guidelines about categorisation. I don't. I do, however, ignore empty threats.Rathfelder (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring is exactly what you were doing. You were reverted by several people but continued to remove the material. If you want to be slavish to a guideline then that is your business but please be aware that you cannot force it on anyone else. - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Rathfelder, you've been warned not to do this multiple times, by me and by others. Your persistence is disruptive, for which I've blocked you for 48 hours. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Tracklists

Sorry but I don't see the problem with Terra Incognita - the tracklist is documented on Discogs and Amazon (w/o bonus tracks). Is there something I'm missing? Blythwood (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is it notable?Rathfelder (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

A heads up

You nominated the category Beaches in Oslo for renaming. I noticed that when starting the CFD you said you wanted it merged to Beaches of Oslo. Obviously you meant of Oslo, like you had with other CFDs you started. So I went ahead and tweaked the CFD here[4]. I hope you don't mind it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Rathfelder (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)