User talk:IJBall

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Catania Metro/Routemap

Hi. I don't do much work on templates, but I saw you in the above article's edit history. Not sure this belongs in mainspace. Could you have a look? Catania Metro/Routemap. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Yeah, the move from template space to mainspace looks to be incorrect – I've never heard of anyone doing what was done there. I've moved it back. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear User:IJBall thank you for your contribution to the work I've done on Catania Metro/Routemap. Feel free to add you comments here: Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#Route diagram location --Vadp (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Jodelle Ferland

Le nom Ferland est un nom typiquement français ! Elle est donc d'origine française ! Vous débattez sur de la forme alors que moi je débats sur du fond ! Vous pouvez supprimer les origines anglaise et autrichienne si vous le souhaitez, mais sachez qu'elle est bien d'origine française ! http://www.filae.com/nom-de-famille/FERLAND.html User:Jejesga06 22:55, 22 january 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy translation by Google for you, IJBall. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jejesga06: Wow, French... OK, let me try: Même si Ferland est d'origine française, nous avons encore besoin d'une source fiable pour vérifier ses origines. C'est la politique Wikipedia (WP:BLP). (English: Even if the surname Ferland is of French origin, we still need a reliable source to verify her ethnic origins. This is Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP).) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nous pouvons débattre philosophiquement sur "qu'est-ce qu'une source fiable ?" ... mais là n'est pas la question, son nom est un nom français, elle est donc logiquement d'origine française. Tout comme 29 à 45% du vocabulaire anglais (suivant les sources) est d'origine française. Ce qui me permet de te comprendre très facilement. Habitues toi à parler français car avec le développement de l'Afrique, la langue française va se développer massivement. User:Jejesga06 23:26, 22 january 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not how BLP's work – nearly everything requires a source, including (especially) bio details like ethnic origins. (Attempted French version: Malheureusement, ce n'est pas la façon dont le travail de BLP - presque tout nécessite une source, y compris (surtout) des détails bio comme les origines ethniques.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Liv and Maddie#Duplicate plot summaries

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Liv and Maddie#Duplicate plot summaries.

Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H

I don't know how much clearer I can be on other articles not setting precedence over other articles. (As a reminder, this is the user who I think has lost their rights to freely make edits, and you agreed, IJBall.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

Also need to be careful with possibly discouraging people who in actual good faith are trying to improve an article. People learn by reading other articles and form their own opinions based on that on what they see as actual practices, as opposed to maybe unfamiliar guidelines. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Liv and Maddie

Did you ever see the discussion I just started? This edit was reverted last year and I decided to get consensus, but only Amaury responded. Did you ever see the edit? The discussion exists at Talk:Liv and Maddie#Duplicate plot summaries. So far there hasn't been another reply from another user and I get the feeling that Amaury just doesn't like me at all. He claims this article doesn't need to follow the guidelines of other articles but I don't see why it shouldn't. I don't get the point of it not being like other Disney Channel and Nickelodeon teen sitcom articles. The lead lacks context and their does not seem to be a point in listing two plot summaries, especially when both lack certain details. Are there any other editors that should be involved in this discussion? Geraldo Perez failed to chime in this time like he usually does (I don't know why). Kkjj (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kkjj: I don't intend to participate in that discussion. But I'd be lying if I didn't say that I prefer the version before the edit you link to above, based on a quick perusal. It's possible the original can be improved upon, but I think your edit was probably too radical a change. My advice would be to go back to Talk:Liv and Maddie, and maybe start a discussion where you go section-by-section through the article, suggest what changes you think should be made, and then see what kind of response you get. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I already tried that, see the link above. What made my edit bad? This article lacks a well-structured lead like the other articles. The fact that there are two plot summaries when only one is needed does not make sense at all. The first of the two was supposed to be in the lead because this article lacks context about the show in the lead like other articles. In fact, Girl Meets World has more plot info in the lead than in the actual plot summary. Other Disney Channel articles such as Wizards of Waverly Place, Good Luck Charlie, and A.N.T. Farm also give their shows more context than Liv and Maddie, particularly Good Luck Charlie. This article simply lacks compared to other articles about Disney Channel and Nickelodeon teen sitcoms. Do you agree? Amaury doesn't seem to, but I needed another user's opinion. Kkjj (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Underwood listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Matthew Underwood. Since you had some involvement with the Matthew Underwood redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Transition to "Episodes" on episode lists

In that case, would you like to go through the episode lists in my sandbox and do a mass change to "Episodes"? And thinking about it now, it probably should have been the other way around all this time. "Episode list" on the main articles and "Episodes" on the episode lists. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: It's pretty standard as an "Episodes" header (at both types of articles) from what I've seen, and I generally change it to "Episodes" in those few older articles I stumble across that have the header as "Episode list". I'll try to remember to go through your list for this, but these days I seem to have other fish to fry, as I seem to be coming across multiple articles every day that don't meet our notability thresholds and should be WP:PRODed, etc. It's actually getting me down a bit, because the magnitude of absolute crud articles (almost in every case created by a "drive-by editor" that has never been heard from again) that we have in this project is starting to be mind-boggling: there's literally so much that should probably be deleted that I'm currently trying to figure out whether to throw up my hands on it or not! I really am starting to see that this problem is probably beyond the WP:NPP project, and that we really need to ramp up the criteria for article creation... Anyway, I'll see if I can get to your request. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Ride viewers

Given that it's an imported series, I think it's actually started out quite well, certainly better than Disney Channel's imported Backstage and The Lodge overall. Backstage's first season had an average of 0.95 million viewers while The Lodge's first season had an average of 0.73 million viewers. Combining the averages, that is an average of 0.84 million viewers between the two series. For some extra information, Backstage's first two episodes average to 1.18 million viewers and The Lodge's first two episodes average to 0.77 million viewers. And if you combine those averages, you get an average of 0.98 million viewers between the two series for their first two episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's see where Ride ends up... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

True! Although for an imported series to start with one million or more is quite good in my book. Backstage stayed above one million viewers per episode most of the time for the first half of season one, but then the ball dropped in the second half of season one when they just turned it into a filler series, as you put it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nickelodeon wins 2016

MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H

Nickelodeon won 2016 in regard to viewers: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2016/12/28/nickelodeon-wins-2016-with-kids-and-total-viewers-outperforms-competition-by-double-digits-40211/20161228nickelodeon01/ Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure that this has happened before in a long time, if ever. Disney earlier put out a press release trying to claim they won 2–11 viewers or something. But, basically, it looks like the two nets have flipped places – Disney used to win total viewers, while Nick would sometimes win Kids; now it looks like the situation has reversed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You're not sure Nick has won like this before is what you're saying? Disney Channel's win in 2015 was a first-ever when going against Nickelodeon:

• http://deadline.com/2015/12/disney-channel-wins-2015-full-day-total-viewers-ratings-1201674224/
• http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/ratings-disney-channel-beats-nickelodeon-2015-1201669852/

Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. One bit of added confusion is the Variety ref you use is quoting "Total Day" ratings. I think in the past I've usually paid attention to evening/"Primetime" ratings, rather than "Total Day", the former of which Disney has been winning consistently for years IIRC... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

On the subject of ratings, hopefully Stuck in the Middle's season two premiere does well tomorrow. How do you feel about it? Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's Disney's best current show. It seems to be their most popular as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If you had to take a guess, what numbers do you think we could see? MPFitz1968, you're obviously welcome to weigh in as well given the weekly prediction questions I've been asking you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow ratings closely anymore (haven't in years, really...). But if I had to guess, I'd expect it to do better than any of Disney's other shows. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The average viewership for season one of Stuck in the Middle was around 1.6 million per episode. The "movie", which is shown to be only one hour in the TV listing, probably will be near that average or maybe a tenth or two (couple hundred thousand viewers) higher. Though my track record for predicting how these ratings will go hasn't been stellar. I do tend to agree it's probably Disney Channel's most popular show at the moment, though I could be biased, too, since other than Girl Meets World, it's the only one of their shows I've followed avidly from the beginning. MPFitz1968 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

IJBall, MPFitz1968: And ta-dah! List of Stuck in the Middle episodes#Season 2 (2017). Additionally, rank five and 0.45 million for 18–49. Are you blown away? Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't say I'm too surprised by these results. More encouragingly to me, unlike "Stuck in the Store", I thought "Stuck in the Waterpark" was actually good – back to season #1's form. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I had my concerns given the ratings for Disney Channel's other sitcoms, but I was proved wrong. As always, I expect Nick did well. We'll see when Saturday's ratings are posted tomorrow morning. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

MPFitz1968 Well, this is saddening. 1.09 million total viewers, 0.18 million viewers for 18–49, and a rank of 62 for the second episode of season two. That's a 1.04 million (49%) drop in total viewers—almost half!—and a 0.27 million (60%) drop in 18–49 viewers. It looks like Stuck in the Middle is also cursed now as before this, its series low was 1.29 million total viewers which isn't a terribly bad number. Disney Channel has definitely really dropped the ball somewhere. I know I read comments that people were going to boycott Disney Channel for canceling Girl Meets World, but I can't imagine the number of people would actually make that big of an impact. Plus, numbers dropped even before Girl Meets World ended or the cancellation was announced. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

That is a huge drop in viewership! I'm not exactly sure that it's all because of the fallout from the GMW cancellation and a lot saying they will boycott/are boycotting Disney Channel. One possible other theory would be the content of this episode: I have noticed a trend of their being pretty liberal with the potty-type dialogue (which I will refrain from mentioning here, but also note that in "Stuck in the Slushinator", "Stuck in the Mother's Day Gift", and even the season two premiere "Stuck in the Waterpark - The Movie"). I honestly don't have a problem with that, but some families may be turned off by that kind of talk. Disney seems to be OK with potty dialogue, but not with mature content. (Not sure about Nickelodeon's stance with that.) Even though I present that theory as a possible reason for SITM's huge drop in viewership, I will not dismiss the boycott Disney theory (though I'd wait to see if new shows like Tangled, Andi Mack, and the long-awaited sequel to Descendants continue this trend of sagging ratings later in the year). MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: It's strange, though. Doesn't Nickelodeon do the same thing? Yet they seem to be having no problems with their ratings. Sure, School of Rock kind of fluctuates a bit, but even that's not too bad, and I have a feeling those ratings that are somewhat on the low side are approximately the ratings they expect for that series. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello IJBall,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 808 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Email

Got the alert here, but just a heads up that I won't be able to check it until I get back in approximately four hours as my college blocks email ports. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It's nothing super important. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: The Other Kingdon

For what it's worth, I read something a while ago that negotiations for a second season of The Other Kingdom were in the works, most likely because it's not fair to leave us on a cliffhanger like that. Obviously, we'll need a reliable source, but knows? It might get renewed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: I still think it's safer to put that one "on a clock". If it does ultimately get renewed, we can simply remove the timer. And I'm quite certain that any renewal for that one would have to come before summer 2017 which would give us plenty of time to remove the timer if it becomes necessary. FWIW, I doubt that one will get renewed (for one thing, I don't think Tori Anderson will be available to do it anymore), though I suppose a (finale) "special", a la Make It Pop, is possible. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:K.C. Undercover#WP:DEFINING categories

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:K.C. Undercover#WP:DEFINING categories. Could use some extra attention to the article. This isn't the first time I've tangoed with this user. Feel free to add to the started discussion. Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

Guest star credits for Legendary Dudas

I brought this up on Nyuszika7H's talk page a while ago—please see here!—and now that I've gone through and fixed the directing and writing credits, I wanted to revisit this and see what you, as well as Nyu, thought. This only includes episodes two through six which each featured two mini-episodes, but were still obviously one episode, as the first episode was just one big episode.

I'll use the fifth episode—Un Film de Duda/Homeroom Wars—since that's what I have on the Nick site right now for an example. Currently, the guest stars are displayed like so:

Guest stars: Jackson A. Dunn as Elmer, Pearce Joza as Logan, Dallas Liu as Carter, Meyrick Murphy as Dallas, Daniella Perkins as Sophia, Megan Richie as Gigi, Laura Harman as Miss Tolomeo, Davis Cleveland as Icuzio, Kelly Perine as Principal Platt

However, watching the end credits, you'll see Un Film de Duda Guest Starring and Homeroom Wars Guest Starring, so should it instead be like this?

Un Film de Duda guest stars: Jackson A. Dunn as Elmer, Pearce Joza as Logan, Dallas Liu as Carter, Meyrick Murphy as Dallas, Daniella Perkins as Sophia, Megan Richie as Gigi, Laura Harman as Miss Tolomeo

Homeroom Wars guest stars: Jackson A. Dunn as Elmer, Dallas Liu as Carter, Meyrick Murphy as Dallas, Daniella Perkins as Sophia, Megan Richie as Gigi, Davis Cleveland as Icuzio, Kelly Perine as Principal Platt

(Also two separate lines.) Thoughts? Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll invite MPFitz1968 and Geraldo Perez to this discussion as well and see if they have any feedback. As usual, I don't think they mind being solicited for feedback. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What I'd do is check to see how Ned's Declassified... handled guest casting, as Ned was setup the same way: two 15-minute "segments" strung together to form one 30-minute "episode". IIRC, Ned just did one big "guest credits" at the end of the entire 30 minutes (though, with Ned episode guest stars did sometimes appear in both 15-min segments) – if Dudas handles guest-crediting the same way, then I think the first example would be the correct way to handle it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IJBall, I think so. I'm not totally understanding what you said. Do you mean Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide had one overall guest star listing during the end credits with no segment labels, but sometimes in the end credits they had the segment labels and showed the guest stars for each segment? (For example, segment one guest stars: A, B, C; segment two guest stars: A, T, Y.) Here's the aforementioned episode on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwBWxE9lutQ. Put it in full screen and skip to 20:50. Then just look closely for the mini-episode name and the guest starring. They're a bit hard to see, in part because they're not the official end credits, just generic ones while the episode is playing to have more time for commercials, I think, but I think they're easy enough to make out what they are. If you have a cable/satellite login, though, you can skip to 21:57 here: http://www.nick.com/legendary-dudas/videos/un-film-de-duda-homeroom-wars-s1-ep5-full-episode/ Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

My recollection is that Ned didn't "tie" guest stars to either "segment", but just had a guest cast listing in the end credits that threw all the guest stars from both segments together without specifying segment. It sounds like Dudas does actually list guest cast by segment, so it's different from Ned in that way. As a result, I'm thinking the "2a/2b" episode listing might be the way to go... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

2a/2b form looks reasonable to do here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

We would just need to still keep them as one main entry since they are each one episode, just made up of two segments, if that makes sense, supported both by Amazon and the fact and there's only one set of ratings for each episode on Showbuzz Daily, excluding the first one since it was one approximately 22-minute segment. Just need to figure out how to do this with the table as I've never done it before, haha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What the IP did on this version from December 25, 2016 (diff), of List of Henry Danger episodes was wrong, but something like this would work for Legendary Dudas. We would just need to have an additional HR to have two titles within the same row. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This is mostly unrelated to the current discussion, but I have to say I dislike the use of the 'HR' hard rule lines over the use if "1–2" in episodes tables most of the time. Unfortunately, there are some WP:TV editors who seem to be pushing the use of this 'HR' stuff, but I really prefer the use of "1–2" the vast majority of the time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

IJBall, Geraldo Perez, I've made an example here: User:Amaury/sandbox#Legendary Dudas Episode Table. I'm not sure how it would be done without the HR tags because they are indeed single episodes that just happen to contain two segments, so the air date, production code, and viewers are all "one" and belong to the same episode and don't need to be distinguished. The numbering, titles, directors, and writers are all that need to be distinguished between one segment and the other. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That's basically fine, and is an example of using the 'hard rule' lines correctly – but I would not go with "2-A" listing you have there: I think "2a" or "2A" is fine. But I still think just going to a full on 2a/2b "split" listing a la List of Breadwinners episodes is the better way to go here – I don't think it's "undue" or ignoring the sourcing to do list this show that way... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've tweaked my example and added what I believe is your example. I guess my only issue with that is that we're duplicating information—for example, two instances of August 6, 2016. I mean, there is duplicate information in other cases as well, such as when Liv and Maddie premiered two episodes for its third season, but there it was two different episodes, so it just, I don't know, feels different to me there. Here it's one episode with two segments. I suppose we can wait and see what the others think. Although I will say that your way makes it more clear who guest stars in which segment. Even with the HR tags using my way, it's not totally clear who guest stars in which segment. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep – definitely prefer the second example. If we go that way, there just needs to be text added above the table in the 'Episodes' section, stating in words that the show aired as two 15-minute segments (or "chapters") bundled together into one 30-minute episode... I notice that the Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide article, etc. make no mention of this in the article – I'll have to try to add text to that effect when I get the chance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Either way for the article works but the actual end credits are the official credits so would be my preference. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: I agree! Should follow the authoritative credits which is also why I brought this up. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If we decide the second way is preferable, then I wonder if "splitting" the episodes list into "2a/2b" episode entries might be the better way to go?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't see an issue with that, personally. It wouldn't exactly match The Futon Critic and Zap2it, but I think episode lists for cartoons like SpongeBob do the same thing even though it may not be like that in the sources. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New suspicions

MPFitz1968, Callmemirela, Sro23

I have a strong hunch this editor is our good ol' "friend." We'll find out if and when they revert me with a combative or lack of an edit summary. I'm keeping an eye on it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the three articles they have gone to so far have been ones you recently edited, Amaury, so that thought was going thru my mind, too. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Pretty much a lock after an IP related to ones we have for "them" reverted your reverts. Added that IP to the list. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

A burner account doesnt really gave a self to incriminate does it. Youre still reverting Amaury's own preferred version. WP:NOTHERE