User talk:Elockid

E L O C K I D

Home

Talk Page

Contributions

My Stats

Archives

Subpages

Email

E L O C K I D ' S U S E R P A G E

Archives 2009 2010 2011 2012		2013 2014 2015

Bell Canada Rangeblock

Hello, Just a few days ago, I was blocked from editing using my 3G network as a range block had been enforced by yourself. As this IP address's domain is of the cellular service Bell Canada, these IP addresses are therefore dynamic and change frequenlty with cellular users. Meaning that someone can easily change their IP address either by moving to different locations or even by consistenly rebooting their phones. Therefore is there a way to pinpoint the person behind these vandalism attacks and block him/her directly, rather than blocking a range of addresses (meaning every one from Bell Canada) for editing Wikipedia? Its ridiculous that there are only a few vandals whom are ruining it for a large group of people. 207.164.79.29 (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the IP range you're editing from? Regarding some of your other concerns, there is currently no way no block a specific device from editing. Cellular networks allocate their IP ranges based on location. Unless the vandal has consistently been editing from for example BC, Ontario, and Quebec in a span of a few hours, it is highly unlikely that the entire Bell Canada range is blocked. Elockid ^{Message me} 12:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I recently rebooted my phone, hence the change of IP address. Actually, the last IP address I posted the edit from was likely based in the Mississagua, Ontario region given that I was there not too long ago, thus likely wasn't affected by the block. However as I am now back in the York Region area, this IP address that I am now editing from has previously been affected by the block, which was applied to the following range of 184.151.190.0/24 (or something similar). It is therefore likely that this vandal is based in the York Region area (northeastern Greater Toronto Area). 184.151.190.153 (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That could be possible. The vandal has been disrupting the project for some time now and has been threatening to cause mass disruption (that's one of the IPs they've been using). There's other threats but the one I linked to is the most recent. It is likely that if they do decide to carry out those threats, the IP(s) may be blocked again. Might I suggest registering an account? It's a quick process. If you are unable to do so because of there is a block in place, you can also request one at WP:ACC. If you do decide to request an account while the IP is blocked, please ping me by placing {{ping|Elockid}} that you have requested the account and I can expedite the process for you. Elockid ^{Message me} 15:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow that is really messed up. Thanks, but I actually do have a Wikipedia account. However I dont see the point of keep on signing in for the purpose to make minor edits, as Safari doesnt always keep me logged in. Maybe I should get the Wikipedia app on my phone instead, so I can remain logged in at all times. (184.151.190.153 (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC))

Request for a review of a block

There is an unblock request at User talk:Agrimpard, relating to a web host block you placed on the range 2001:41d0::/32. The editor accepts that the company that the range belongs to runs a web host service, but says that they also act as an ISP, and that he or she is using it merely as an ISP. Looking at pages on the company's web site makes that explanation look perfectly likely, but I really can't tell whether the particular IP address is a web host or not. Can you look into it, and decide whether there is clear evidence that the IP address is a web host? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-hosting ranges are listed as DSL/Telecom. SAS is hosting. Elockid ^{Message me} 22:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I take it that means that the blocked range is used only for hostign purposes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Hi, User:Ponyo advised me to contact you regarding this here. I wanted to know if a a checkuser be done for 7uperWkipedan as suggested by NeilN here. 7uperWkipedan was incorrectly tagged as a sock of AndresHerutJaim when he was actually topic banned from WP:ARBPIA and then indefinitely blocked for not complying with it. However, as pointed out here by Jeppiz action needs to be taken against the sockmaster, who had not been identified and there may also be sleepers still in operation. I wasn't sure how to request a new report and there's no suspected socks to compare it with. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I ran a check on 7uperWkipedan and did not find anything much else at that time. They mostly edit logged out and have been doing so for quite some time. I believe since at least 2013 (I have been getting reports from other users who suspected that the logged out edits may be AndresHerutJaim). Based on what I've seen this appears to be 7uperWkipedan's first account. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 15:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Elockid, thanks for answering my last query. I was wondering if you could have a look at this outstanding investigation here. Nableezy has sent an email of behavioural evidence, however, there does not appear to be acknowledgement of whether this has been received and reviewed by anyone. Considering that Nableezy has a lot of experience spanning six years with this master, I have suggested taking this into account. In addition to Nableezy, IPs appear to be making the same accusation about the editor being a sock too. Can a CheckUser be performed to find out if the editor in question is or has been controlling any other accounts? Tanbircdq (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It could be possible that the email may have been sent to spam which is why there was no response. It does appear that other CheckUsers have previously looked at this matter and it doesn't look like they were able to come up with anything worthwhile. They haven't commented previously in the SPI so I'm not sure if they are familiar with the case. I could perform a Check but I would need more evidence. I would be interested to see this email. Perhaps I could find stronger links. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 13:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify I was referring to the SPI opened on 29 October 2015, not the one for 6 October 2015. In addition, as HJ Mitchell agreed the editing behaviour suggests it's very likely that this isn't the editor's first account, is this not enough for a CheckUser request under WP:BLOCK EVASION? Maybe Nableezy can clarify the whereabouts of his/her email. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I need to do a little clarifying myself. I was referring to the case for 29th of October. The account has been looked at by several CheckUsers and it didn't appear that they have found anything fruitful. What I was going for in asking the email was that perhaps it would give me additional information for me to perform additional checks (these will be for a comparison to link for a potential sockmaster). Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 23:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the help desk?

Ok; I get that an IP was causing disruption and appeared to be a blocked or banned editor. But... it's the help desk, where people are supposed to go for help. It gets a LOT of questions from new editors and IPs, none of whom are autoconfirmed. It seems like it defeats the purpose of even having a help desk to indef semi-protect it just because one user is causing disruption there. Moreover, if that user is who everyone seems to think it is, then they are more than capable of evading the block, the semi-protection, etc. should they so choose. Yes, the Teahouse exists to help new users, but I think for a lot of them the help desk is easier to find. It just seems illogical to protect the help desk. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I realize that this page has a higher level of anon and new user traffic which is why I kept the protection to a short duration. It is not indefinitely semi-protected, it expires in a few hours. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 16:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's the move protection that's indefinite. That makes more sense. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

IF this is true (you've offered no proof)...

...then you should have said that in your original edit summary.

Is there something, somewhere that says banned users are not allowed to bring concerns to ANI?Cebr1979 (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not required to revert ban users. The banning policy states the following: "Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below.". Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 01:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Not saying I don't believe you but, can you link to this please? I'm not going to (nor should any editor ever be expected to) go search for non-linked policies. You wanna quote a policy, link to it. Otherwise, it's rubbish.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:Site ban and the site ban discussion here. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 01:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much (haven't read them yet but, I will)!Cebr1979 (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Banned users are not allowed to edit in any way, shape or form; and the edit summary I posted "WP:DENY" is sufficient explanation. You need to let the admin do his job, and not feed the troll by assuming bad faith on the part of the admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ya... nothing about your response was a "sufficient explanation." I'm not going to (nor should any editor ever be expected to) go search for non-linked policies. You wanna quote a policy, link to it. Otherwise, it's rubbish.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is WP:DNFTT. The more you fool around with this, the more attention the banned user gets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed (all the more reason to not confuse others...)!Cebr1979 (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, here's one for you. WP:3RR. Right now you are at four. 1, 2, 3, 4. So don't touch another editor's comments there, period. Go read WP:BAN.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, lost count! Thanks so much! Won't happen again, promise!Cebr1979 (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

About the removal of banned-editor edits, see Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors where it says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read any of these links yet (but, I will - and not because I think you guys are lying or anything, I'm genuinely interesting in reading them) but... wouldn't that one be the same as what Elockid has already linked to above?Cebr1979 (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe Bugs is trying to give a more precise location about the situation. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 04:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha (both)! Thanks!Cebr1979 (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding a WP:ACC request

Hello Elockid, could you please hope in ACC for a minute and check 159073 please? Thanks—UY Scuti ^Talk 17:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Appears good to process. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 23:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Impressive reverting

You almost always get to Vote X's ongoing campaign posts before me (and I'm pretty addicted vigilant!) - great work! :) Seeing as the text follows a very predicable pattern, would an edit filter be any use? Perhaps applied solely to the noticeboard for unregistered users? I'm sure it's been considered, just curious Merry Christmas! -- samtar ^whisper 17:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try and whip something up and get it going the day after Christmas (hope you don't mind the wait). Also, have a happy holiday! Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 17:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course the wait is fine Thanks for being awesome enough to do it! -- samtar ^whisper 17:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: I've sent you an email regarding this. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 14:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe AndresHerutJaim

Special:Contributions/Gilsrafnorn looks like it could be another User:AndresHerutJaim sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

 Confirmed and blocked. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 13:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Salamat. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Elockid, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! Hope you had a good one. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 13:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for decrease in page protection

Hi! The page Calvin Cheng was fully protected on 16 December. Although it seems like an editing dispute, there were multiple incidents of disruptive editing. There was persistent removal (including a WP:3RR violation which I did not report) of reliably cited content by one particular editor (see [1], [2], [3]). If you look at the history of the article, you can see there have been other similar instances of this user's actions. The page was previously protected from 2 December to 8 December due to similar reasons. At the moment, there seems to have been some consensus on the talk page between me and another editor Khairulash. However, I am not sure how to deal with the third editor. There editor in question has also previously performed unexplained blanking of talk page discussion (see Talk:Calvin Cheng#Removing Comments from Talk_Page.) I would like to know your opinion on these incidents (please have a look at the history of the page). Do they count as disruptive editing? (Sorry, I have been editing for about 6 weeks so I may not be as experienced). If all is well, could you decrease the level to semi-protection so that autoconfirmed users can edit it?
Is there also any way to check if a editor has been editing simultaneously from their account and also from another IP (maybe using a different browser?) I may be wrong, but looking at the edits being reverted and also the writing style of certain posts on the talk page, I feel inclined to believe so. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Based on the latest comment from Aricialam, it would appear that he/she has had an agreement with you. As such, I have unprotected the page. Regarding your concerns about the removal of talk page comments, I do believe the removal was inappropriate. It appeared that legitimate concerns were trying to be raised. If there was a repeated removal of these comments, these would be classified as disruptive. But it doesn't look to be the case here.

There is a way to check if a person is simultaneously from their account and logged out. CheckUsers such as myself have the ability to look into this. Though we generally do not share specifics about technical evidence and we don't reveal which IPs an editor has been using. For example, I can't publicly or even privately tell you that whether or not the IPs were being used by the same editor. In the future, if you suspect sockpuppetry, please file an SPI at the sockpuppet investigations page. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 13:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Yup, thankfully there was no repeated removal of comments. I just wanted to know whether it was appropriate behaviour or not. Hopefully there will not be any further disruptions on the page.  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on SPI as well! I will file a request should I require in the future.  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OVH Rangeblock

Heya, Regarding this block, could I ask for your input here please? SQL^{Query me!} 13:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@SQL:, see User talk:Elockid#Request for a review of a block. WHOIS is saying that is SAS. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 13:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

EFM

Hi Elockid - thought I'd ask what my chances are of getting them EFM right? I've been active over at the false positives page and do look over the requested filters every now and then, and have a pretty decent understanding of regex. Any thoughts? Thanks -- samtar ^whisper 15:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking back at your request from September, I'd say that there's been improvement and that you're well on your way. Probably though to ensure that no one else opposes your request, I'd follow MusikAnimal's advice and also work on WP:EF/R. For more advanced permissions, not having a need would be seen as hat collecting. So be sure to also put the areas you'd be willing to work on like handling new filter requests, improving current filters, etc. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 18:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Elockid, I'll see if my regex-fu is up to scratch with the current requests Happy New Years! -- samtar ^whisper 19:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Years to you too! Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 21:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Elockid: Sorry to bother you again. I've had a look, and drafted up some regex for one, but it seems regex doesn't play as big a part as it seems? Could you point me in the best direction to learn about the rest of the edit filter coding? Thanks again -- samtar ^whisper 19:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules_format is the place to go for all the info on available conditions. Regex does play a fairly big part though, many filters are simply 'we know a vandal writes this phrase every edit' and writing some regex to catch that text. Sam Walton (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much what Sam said. The link that Sam gave is very useful. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 23:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Elockid

Pratyya ^(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2016. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2016 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2016 go well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Thanks! Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 13:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit filter notice

Hi Elockid. Per a recent guideline RfC, if a filter is switched to disallow a notice should now be posted to WP:EFN (preferably beforehand). I've done that for 743; the RfC didn't get huge input so no worries about not noticing/remembering! Sam Walton (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Haven't seen that RfC yet. Thanks for the heads up. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 17:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Laurent Tillie

Hi, you protected Laurent Tillie from creation. Can you please move Laurent Tillie (volleyball) to Laurent Tillie. Thank you! Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 23:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi again :), Thanks for previous time. I have the same question again, can you please move Draft:Evgeny Sivozhelez to Evgeny Sivozhelez. Thank you Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 18:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It's me again, please move also Draft:Artem Volvich, to Artem Volvich Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done and  Done. Elockid ^{Message me} 20:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

question

How do you archive pages? because I want to clean up my talk page but I am not sure if its something only admins can do or? Saturn star (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Archiving is something that everyone can do. It's really simple. There are two ways archive, you can either do it manually or automatically.

To do it manually, you do following:

1) Highlight the sections that you want to archive.

2) Right click or press Ctrl+X (Windows) or Command+X (Mac)

3) If you haven't created an archive page, you can create one and call it something like Archive 1. Paste the sections on the archive page.

4) At the very top, place {{archive}}

5) On your talk page, create a link to your archives. You can use a template like Template:Archive banner.

If you want to do it automatically, you can have a bot do it. There's several to choose from here. For example, if you want to use ClueBot III, just follow the instructions at User:ClueBot III#How to archive your page. That's pretty much it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Elockid ^{Message me} 14:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On the occasion of the troll's Hitler section...

Hi Elockid, a general question based on your deletion (and priors) of this section: Does WP:Deny command deletion of such sections in their entirety, even including constructive contributions of users without any cause for a complaint? So is it wrong to try an adjusted version without the troll's content like this and if so, why? --KnightMove (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Even though there are constructive comments there, the responses acknowledges them. This in turn would defeat the purpose of denying them recognition since acknowledgement is still a form of encouragement. I wouldn't say that it's necessarily wrong to do an adjusted version per se, but when dealing with trolls, it's generally best practice to remove anything that indicate that we want them here. Elockid ^{Message me} 20:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well... if this is consensus here, ok. --KnightMove (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Rv

Hi, why gave no summary? Is he blocked? Thx. Edit: Ah ok i see he got blocked today. prokaryotes (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a banned troll who has been disrupting this encyclopedia for some time now. Elockid ^{Message me} 16:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible block target

I'm not sure if this is the one you were targeting, but based on their talk page request you might want to extend the scope of the block. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and range widened. Elockid ^{Message me} 04:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

More trouble from probable sockpuppets of a blocked IP

Elockid, I see that you blocked a series of IP addresses including 178.73.210.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 178.73.210.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 178.73.210.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in December. Presumably the same person has carrying on the disruptive discussion at Talk:Earthquake prediction as 77.238.217.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 77.238.218.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 77.238.213.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). RockMagnetist(talk) 21:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I blocked the 178 IP since it was a webhost. In general, webhosts host proxies or other anonymizing services. A blocked user was abusing that range which is why I blocked it. It doesn't appear that the blocked user is the same person as the 178 or 77 IP. I can't find any evidence right now that suggests the 77 IP is hosting any proxy services. Elockid ^{Message me} 13:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about the proxy service, but I don't see how they could be different users. Their only contributions are to continue the discussion from the same viewpoint on the same talk page. If you could tell me the userid of the blocked user, I could test this on the sockpuppet site. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response. What I meant was that there was a blocked user who created accounts using the the 178 IP. The blocked user who was creating the accounts has no relation to the person editing Earthquake prediction. They only created accounts and used those accounts to disrupt the project. The person editing Earthquake prediction did not prompt the block and is likely just unfortunate collateral. Elockid ^{Message me} 21:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

O.k., thanks. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Bean

Vandalism still occurs. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Apologies for the late response. Elockid ^{Message me} 21:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Endorsement of SPI

I need you to do an immediate checkuser check on this case https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anhinhhhd&action=edit&section=1. The users are getting out of control. CLCStudent (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't do much in the way of blocks or preventing more accounts. I thought there was an edit filter to prevent these edits. I'll try to find it. Elockid ^{Message me} 17:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Req Semi-Protect

Hi, Elockid.

Thanks for the reversions on my talk page. Would you consider semi-protecting it for a few days or a week? I find the messages less annoying than the notifications and the time wasted. BTW, in general, I prefer such comments just be left, not reverted, but I certainly didn't mind it in this case.

Thanks,

μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty, noted for the future. I'll semi your talk page as soon as I get on my main account. ElofoSho (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, ElofoSho, I appreciate it, and would love to know what in the world your username derives from. I am guessing Hebrew, although I have only studied isiZulu and various Indo-European languages. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Ilokano and Tagalog? Nevertheless, ElofoSho and Elockid still strike me as Hebraic, for some odd reason. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's Philippine based. I never would have thought that my username would sound Hebraic. Ironically, my best friends are Jewish and probably being friends for so long, I might have unconsciously made my names as they are now. Elockid ^{Message me} 04:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk page revocation

You should revoke talk page access for user:2601:803:c402:95f0:dd8e:bb07:dc49:f585. 2602:306:3357:BA0:5DD5:8A07:3172:13EB (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)