Wikipedia talk:WikiCup

WikiCup content needing review view •

Featured content MLS Cup 2022 (nom) Costello's (nom) Timeline of the 1995 Pacific hurricane season (nom) Crystal Castles discography (nom) 1964 Summer Olympics medal table (nom) Siege of Baghdad (nom) 2016 Summer Olympics medal table (nom) Good topic candidates Featured pictures DYK Neary's (DYK) GAN United States' Telegraph (start) Laurie Hernandez (start) Madison Kocian (start) IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (start) Path (album) (start) E (Ecco2K album) (start) Dot and Bubble (start) Quannnic (start) Legends of Tomorrow season 3 (start) Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites (song) (start) Geoffrey Cuming (start) Celestica (song) (start) Not in Love (Crystal Castles song) (start) Jailson Mendes (start) Oil of Every Pearl's Un-Insides Non-Stop Remix Album (start) Alexandra Kiroi-Bogatyreva (start) PR William L. Breckinridge (rev) Majed Abu Maraheel (rev) Beebo the God of War (rev)

Incorrect bot character calculation

I've put forward 2017 FA Cup Final for DYK points but the bot appears to miss the 5000+ character bonus. By my last count, the page had 5,424 characters and should have been awarded the full 10 points. Is there something up with the bot? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This article appeared on DYK on 27th May 2017, so the size of article is calculated for what it was at the last edit on 26th May. At that time it was 4383 characters, ie fewer than the 5000 odd required to gain 10 points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: There's the same issue with Dennis Coralluzzo, by my count the page has 5,191 characters at last edit prior to running but the bot didn't give the extra points. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you; the requirement according to the rules is 5120 bytes of readable prose for a 10-point DYK, and this one seems to have been 5185 bytes, according to the page size tool. @Jarry1250: Let's ask the expert. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I can quite believe the bot is off by 65 bytes. Happy to check properly when I get a moment, but for the moment you can just override the bot's calculation. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 22:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Mmm, seemed to be quite a few problems with that bit of code. I've updated the relevant code [1]. I note you hadn't overriden the bot in the meantime though? Was there a particular reason you chose not to? - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 18:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't seen your response! Also, I am not sure how the bot works. Does it recalculate the score every time it makes a pass? When I have removed a couple of non-qualifying submissions, the scores seem to adjust appropriately. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries. It recalculates editor totals every time, but it only places the multiplier template on the first pass. So you (as a judge) can manually adjust the multiplier templates and it will defer to your judgement. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 08:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I will know what to do on another occasion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawing

Hello I'd like to withdraw from the competition. I don't think I have a hope of advancing due to the back log of GAN's in the category I edit. I would like to thank everyone for the opportunity to compete. Thanks to this contest I not only got my first GA but ended up with 7 GAs and a Good Topic. :D Wish you all the best good luck! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll hold off actually and see if I can't get some of my stuff reviewed... --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Time in Between bonus point calculation

Hi Judges. The Time in Between appeared on the main page as one of three DYK articles. It received 8 points per bot calculation. However, its 2001 article and should be eligible for more points. Not sure if the bot got confused with the article moves in 2007 and 2009. Can you please confirm? - Vivvt (Talk) 07:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging judges; @Godot13, Cwmhiraeth, and Sturmvogel 66: - Vivvt (Talk) 04:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that bonus points are due. I calculate they come to 15 bonus points, 5 for being an expansion of a stub created before 2011, and 10 because the article was created in 2001. Do you agree with this calculation? I have added the points and the bot should add them in to your total score soon.

@Vivvt: I should also mention that of the six DYKs you submitted on behalf of another contestant, I approved four but rejected two because they were submitted too late (15 and 16 days instead of a maximum of 10) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for both. I hadnt noticed their date so just assumed good faith with those. Thanks for the correction. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. The bot was indeed confused by the page move (well, the fact that the article temporarily became a redirect). I have now fixed this (dcbc85de). While I was there, I also made it possible for the judges to leave comments (even a simple stray space) with the bot slapping on another template (3c10d2f5). - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 21:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Bot keeps assessing multiplier due?

@Cwmhiraeth and Jarry1250: Seems the bot won't stop "assessing multiplier due", even though I didn't add new submissions and the submissions being assessed was already assessed before? [2] [3]. HaEr48 (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen some of this, too, like it wants to make absolutely sure that I received my bonus points or something...hardly a major issue, only a question of whether this quirk is the result of a larger bug. Vanamonde (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It's run four times on one of mine, which is weird. Although, as Vanamonde93 says, it isn't a biggie unless it is bugging other things as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jarry1250: I think it must be due to a change made to the bot by Jarry yesterday. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree, it isn't messing up the scores or things like that.. it's just bloating the submission page. HaEr48 (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It's really gotten excited over the last day or so...Vanamonde (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I've posted on LivingBot's talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitely a bug, and one which should be able to be quickly fixed. It was running fine previously, so it should just be reverted to the old version. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Would we be allowed to remove the excess multipliers or should we just sit tight? I don't want to confuse the bot or anything. Carbrera (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC).

I removed the extra ones, mostly as an experiment, and the bot replaced them and them kept going :) Vanamonde (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We are just waiting for Jarry to fix it when he next logs in. Meanwhile, it is having no effect on the score and you can just ignore it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry guys - bot malfunction. It should be fixed now. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 08:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Round 4

To progress to round 4, a contestant will need to have won or been runner up in their pool in round 3, or be one of the eight highest scorers among the other contestants. This year the cut-off score is 288 and contestants with a score lower than this will be eliminated. Two contestants are tied on 288, and the judges propose to allow both Freikorp and Coemgenus to proceed to the next round, which will thus have one pool of eight contestants and one of nine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Concern: GAR fail with no hold on last day of round

Just like the last few years we've had, a GAR that I'm not quite comfortable with is this one. It's a quick fail based on the user's inactivity, which is not a criterion mentioned in WP:GAI, as per the link mentioned by the reviewer in this talk page. Although I'm not a participant in the Cup, mentioning it is worthwhile. The issue raised by the nominator in the reviewer's talk page is valid. Thien Tran (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I added User talk:13.54.152.171#RE: PPPR a long comment to the discussion on the nominator's talk page about why the quick fail was inappropriate. Wikipedia:Good article criteria limits immediate failures to four categories, of which only #1 may be relevant in this case ("It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria."), and there is a footnote (#2) which says:: "Quick fail was added to the process solely to deal with the occasional frivolous nomination, since anyone can nominate to GA (see WP:SNOW). Unless the reviewer is dealing with a "drive-by" nomination at which the nominator does not intend to respond to the review, quick fail should normally not be used." For reasons, mentioned in the linked comment, I don't think quick fail was appropriate in this case. The rules of the competition include that "the spirit of the rules is more important than the letter, and the judges reserve the right to deny points to anyone deemed to be abusing the system". AHeneen (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no view on this particular case at this time, but I note that the WikiCup rules already note that quick fails are not typically appropriate for points: "Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points...". Historically, however, the judges have recognised a difference between a quick fail (i.e., a partial review stating that an article has a particular serious problem that needs to be dealt with before the article can be renominated) and a full review that results in a fail (i.e., a review covering all the bases that concludes, on balance, that the article is not close to GA status, and so the review is closed). While the former is typically not eligible for points, the latter typically is. I have always seen a pretty clear distinction between these, but I've recently had conversations with people who insist that they are precisely the same thing, so maybe my understanding isn't as widely shared as I had assumed. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

To add, the nominator has also raised a concern on the reviewer's talk page. As for the failure itself, I didn't want to waste my time with what I incorrectly thought would be an inactive nominator, but I'm glad to be proved wrong. was the statement given on the nominator's talk page. This eleventh hour failure without given the nominator any time to even check if the article's review had started, is inappropriate. The nominator was assumed to be inactive, based on no edits in the past month, and not based on no response to the review. This is not any criteria to quick fail the article. The review started and ended within 44 minutes, so the nominator might not even know if the review had been started. As proven wrong, the nominator replied the next day, which he would have even done to address the issues on the article, should the article have been put on hold instead. @Cwmhiraeth: Any comments by the judges? Thien Tran (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, before this escalates further, as I did last night on the reviewers talk page, that I didn't quick fail the article, however. A quick fail, which as noted above, are not eligible for points is when a reviewer just lays out a few generic issues. In this case, I merely failed it after giving a reasonably through review, and as a result, under previous precedent, I'd argue it is eligible for points. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussion:

• User talk:13.54.152.171#RE: PPPR
• User talk:Yellow Evan#Request GA hold

I worked hard to improve Political positions of Paul Ryan, requested and waited patiently for an excellent WP:GUILD copy edit, and requested and waited patiently 11 weeks for a good article review and watched it creep slowly up its category. I was excited to see the rev iew and the useful notes but heartbroken at the fail without hold. In my experience, a hold is so customary I was unaware of the exact policy basis for a fail without hold. I am not a Cup participant or ally; unfamiliar with the Cup, I learned that the good article review fail without hold helped a wild-card into the next round! I was further saddened at the lack of remorse and the insistence that everything was within policy. I am less interested in the competition scoring, however, I am concerned that an unintended consequence of the competition rules may be a bias against GAR holds which is counter to the principle that that Cup is to help improve the encyclopedia. Going forward, starting with the current round, may I respectfully suggest no points for GAR fails without holds in the say last two weeks of a round (if the hold is resolved in the interval or in the next round, score it then, ok). If no foul here, I and other editors should be aware of the risk of good article nominations during the Cup. I have re-nominated. I would very much appreciate comments from the judges and others. Thank you to all for your attention to this issue. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It has always been the case that rules are not changed mid-competition. There may be cause for a change in rules for next year's competition, but I fear your proposed change is far too complicated. Again, while I have no opinion on the present case, it is a fairly normal part of the GAC procedure (especially for trickier subjects and editors less familiar with the expectations at GAC, both of which seem to be the case here) for articles to fail to pass the first time around and be put back into the queue once problems have been resolved. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good article nominations sometimes fail. Some atypical aspects of this good article failure:

• the article was failed without a hold, without justification under WP:Good article criteria#Immediate failures;
• the reviewer was a Cup participant;
• the review was started and completed in 45 minutes on the last day of a Cup round;
• the Cup participant advanced as a wild card.

This is not a situation of a nominator unfamiliar with the good article criteria or process. I am not protesting a fail, I am concerned with a lack of clarity in the Cup rules contributing to editors being denied their opportunity to address issues raised in a good article review. Some clarification is apparently required. The Cup rules clearly state no points for quick fails: "quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points". Quick fails are not defined explicitly in the Cup rules; participants are apparently assumed to be familiar with the definition at WP:Good article criteria#Immediate failures. The Cup rules then go on to explain that short reviews are ineligible for points. At least one Cup participant apparently interpreted this to mean: "any review that is not short is not quick", and continues to maintain that position even now here, see earlier in this topic. Please, @Godot13:, @Cwmhiraeth:, @Sturmvogel: Thank you. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Thien Tran:, @AHeneen: Thank you for bringing our project's explicit criteria for GA fail without a hold WP:Good article criteria#Immediate failures into this discussion. I agree with the assessment that a failure without a hold was not justified in this case. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• It's very clear this article was failed without a hold merely to advance in the competition. Had the article not been failed without a hold, the competitor would not have advanced. Further, it strikes me that we have one more editor in this round than initially intended. The solution seems obvious. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Given that most of the issues were addressed quickly, I don't think that's the case, and even regardless, I would have found another article to review YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry to be a bit late in responding to this, but I have been away for the weekend. All submissions are reviewed by the judges and in this case I reviewed the submission and thought, and still think, that the review was sufficient to earn points. The result of a GAR, whether the article passes or fails, is not really of concern for the WikiCup, merely whether the reviewer had done a sufficiently thorough review to earn the points. What is different in this case, is that it was the end of the round, and Yellow Evan would only proceed to round 4 if the review was completed by midnight. The relevant question being, was it reasonable under the circumstances with a nominator who was likely to be unresponsive, to fail the nomination and thus complete the review? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

To the anonymous user (and at risk of repetition): You write that "the article was failed without a hold, without justification under WP:Good article criteria#Immediate failures". I note that it is not the case that all fails must be "quick fails" or must be put on hold for a given amount of time. It is perfectly standard, and perfectly within the spirit and letter of the GAC instructions, to fail an article without placing it on hold if it is deemed sufficiently unlikely that an article can be fixed up in a reasonable amount of time, even if it does not explicitly meet any of the criteria for a quick fail. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. Any assumption that the nominator might be unresponsive is unfounded; if anything the edit history shows patience by the nominator in waiting for a Guild review. In any case activity or inactivity on the part of the nominator is not one of the four WP:Good article criteria#Immediate failures criteria, and the GA criteria explicitly establish the four WP:Good article criteria#Immediate failures criteria as strictly limiting, concluding:

In all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer and is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed.

The fail without hold was unreasonable. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I am deeply saddened to see that this understanding has somehow made it into the criteria. It remains out of the instructions, meaning that the two pages are fairly clearly in conflict with one another. What a mess. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have raised this issue here. Comments welcome, but perhaps we could try to disentangle the general issue from any concerns about this particular review/the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the good article instructions WP:GAI do not repeat the good article criteria WP:GACR; the criteria explain how to decide pass, fail, or hold, and the instructions explain the mechanics of implementing the decision. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: The relevant question is whether this "review" ended with a result designed to benefit the encyclopedia or not. It very clearly did not. It would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to allow the nominator (or any other editor!) to fix the issues in a timely fashion. Most editors get email alerts when they receive messages, so saying inactivity implies you should fail an article is clearly erroneous; the editor likely will return when they get an email prompting them to quickly fix some stuff. The review may have been sufficient for points if it was seen through to the end, but it was not. Note that the GA Cup denies points when editors don't give the nominators a chance to fix issues that are clearly fixable. Are we really going to encourage quick-failing articles for points (and no, don't quibble over wording ... the article was failed quickly, ergo it was a quick-fail in the literal sense) to the detriment of the encyclopedia? If so, count me out. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I completely agree with BU Rob13's assessment of the situation. GA noms are typically given 7 days after a review is initiated to hash out any outstanding concerns (like I was here). It is apparent that the only reason why this grace period was not granted was because the review was started on June 28, with the round closing at 23:59 that same day. The specific rule states that "quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points". While this fail does not fall under the latter category, it most certainly qualifies as the former, since the nominator was given only 44 minutes to address the feedback before it was failed. To answer Cwmhiraeth's question – no, it was not reasonable under the circumstances to fail this nom. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: "and no, don't quibble over wording ... the article was failed quickly, ergo it was a quick-fail in the literal sense". You assume that the "literal sense" of "quick fail" is what is being referred to in the WikiCup rules. It isn't; the WikiCup rules are referring specifically to fails that come about after only a partial review (i.e., the "technical" sense of quick-fail). I'm all for avoiding unnecessary quibbling over wording, but that doesn't mean that we should be equating separate issues. (I would rather not post any further in this thread, as I worry I'm just repeating myself at this point. I've done my best to clarify here, but I fear I'm not being as successful as I would like to be.) Josh Milburn (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"the WikiCup rules are referring specifically to fails that come about after only a partial review" But "quick failing" has an explicit definition in the good article criteria WP:GACR, and I believe that is what the Cup rules are referring to. If nothing else comes of this, I request clarification on this point. Thank you. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes... The explicit definition you refer to is about a failure without a full review. "An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as quick failing)[2] if, prior to the review...". That is what the WikiCup rules are referring to- I agree. I'm really quite surprised (and, dare I say, saddened) by how controversial this whole issue has become. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason why this whole issue has become so controversial is due to the four scenarios in which quick failing is permissible (i.e. long way from meeting any one of the six GA criteria; copyright infringements; cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid; unstable due to edit warring). I don't see how the GAN in question fell under any of these four (especially the first), since the concerns enumerated were addressed within 2 days. Most importantly, the quick fail criteria goes on to state that "[i]n all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer and is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed." This was evidently not adhered to (and at worst, wilfully disregarded) in this case. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If the rules say "You can fail an article without any chance to improve it in order to score points at the deadline", then the rules are wrong. Luckily, the rules state "Attempts to game good article reviews will be looked upon particularly harshly, and, more so than with any other process, people abusing the system will be removed from the Cup." It is clear this has been gamed, and the recourse is right there in the rules. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Am I obligated to leave an article on hold unless I quick-fail it? I in the past have generally failed articles that have are lacking in content or sorucing or for some other reason, not likely to be put up to par within a somewhat reasonable time frame Based on my tenure on Wikipedia, I don't think this view is radical, and seems to be shared my many of my fellow colleagues. Given that I applied this principle above, I don't see what makes this nomination any different. I also don't know how I gamed the system, given that of the five GA reviews I did in the closing days of the WikiCup, I left three of them on hold (and passed within a reasonble amount of time) even though I would have gotten points quicker if I had just failed them right away. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: You're obligated to leave an article on hold if it's possible an editor could improve it in the seven-day hold time period. As you've pointed out, this was improved quite quickly, proving it should have been on hold. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Given that the nominator wasn't active for six weeks prior to the review, I didn't see that as particularly likely. Fortunately, I've been proven wrong. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Given that the nominator wasn't active.. " Why? I've often seen people who were inactive become active once someone review their GA nomination. As someone who've reviewed 179 GAN you must know this. If you wanted to find out the best way was to put the article on hold for several days, not to quick-fail it. HaEr48 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you "left three of [the GARs] on hold" does not prove that you failed the GAR in question without the intention of trying to score some cheap Cup points. Perhaps you're just really skilful at calculating exactly how many points you need to advance to the next round at the expense of other competitors … And why wouldn't you want to hold – you can now use them in this round to get ahead, right? —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that there is an obligation to place an article on hold for seven days if it is clearly not GA material as nominated. I've reviewed a few that (once I've gone right through them) I've decided were just so far from GA material that I've just failed them (while providing ample comments on needed improvements). I wouldn't be that prescriptive, and I don't think there is any guidance that requires such action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Thien Tran for bringing this to attention. After looking at the review in question I agree with the sentiments of others here that the review is highly questionable and looks game-y. Hypothetically, if I were to game the system, this he only way to do it: Include review of "sufficient length" to get around the "sufficient length" WikiCup GA Review rule, then fail quickly so that I could claim points without waiting for the normal process. On the other hand, if I were an innocent reviewer there is no reason to fail this review immediately without waiting at least a few days, it's not like the article is too terrible to passing GA. Also, reviewing the nominator's responses is one of the tasks of a GA reviewer, and Yellow Evan (YE) managed to avoid doing this and still claim the points by the quick fail. Additionally, the four points gained in this review were the critical points without which YE would not have advanced. I respectfully suggest the judges to take action against it, letting this slip will just encourage more people to game the rules. HaEr48 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Imagine: if this kind of review is allowed, it will be the optimum way of gaining cup points from GAR, because it absolves one from the responsibility of waiting, checking the nominator's response and doing the follow up review. Why bother to do all that if I can write minimum amount of review text, then quick fail and claim the points? It makes things worse off for everybody else. GAN queue isn't cleared because the article will have to be renominated, another reviewer will have to pick up the burden of reviewing, and the nominator will have to re-nominate and the article will be listed at the bottom of WP:GAN and wait time will be even longer. Rather than help take the load off the GA process, the WikiCup incentive would just make things worse. Who benefits from it? HaEr48 (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all for your views and comments. I have contacted the other judges but they are inactive at the moment, and if they do not respond I will make a decision on this matter myself. Meanwhile there is the fundamental Wikipedian principle of assuming good faith to consider. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

We should also consider calling a spade a spade, especially when the overwhelming consensus here can see how actions speak louder than words. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)