Talk:7 World Trade Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 7 World Trade Center is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 21, 2007.
September 19, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted


Trade Center 7s collapse[edit]

It seems that the text is implying that World Trade Center tower Seven fell as a result of the damage caused by debris from the other explosions on the same date. I think it is **HIGHLY** important that it be noted that this could not have been the cause of the collapse, and that the true cause was that of a controlled demolition. When a tower collapses from fires burning within, they do not collapse from the top floor first, and they certainly do not collapse evenly. Please do some research on the subject and correct your misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, please sign your "contribution". Secondly, if you care to check the World Trade Center articles - you will find that the consensus of registered Wikipedia editors is that they have no time for conspiracy theories from unreliable sources. There are plenty of sites on the internet for these "theories" and that is where they should stay. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The IP has apparently never read the NIST report on how the building collapsed.--MONGO 03:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
As it stands, Wiki isn't the end-all be-all source for accurate information anyways, so I'm not surprised the admins consider the sources in the article reliable. Good enough for an introductory rundown of the events, I'm sure readers will be smart enough to know they should look at a variety of sources when researching a topic. (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The articlee gives the impression that a scientific consensus exists as to the cause of the collapse of the old building 7. However, this meta-study concludes that there is no such consensus. Shouldn't the article text reflect this uncertainty? Loldrup2 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Your contribution is placed in the wrong place, it should be at the end of this section in keeping with date order. You are trying to insert conspiracy theories into a encyclopedia article. There is already a Conspiracy Theory article and that is where your ideas belong. There is consensus amongst editors that World Trade Center articles are factual and not a vehicle for "truthers". David J Johnson (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, the "meta-study" you cited is from an unreliable source devoted to the conspiracy theory. So, no. -Jordgette [talk] 23:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not a "conspiracy" that it collapsed to demolition. That part is FACT. As stated by countless EXPERTS with decades of experience in demolition. The NIST is not the end all reliable source for accurate information. The majority of researchers have concluded that it was a demolition. So that stands as FACT, and the whim theory that it was collapsed due to fires is the obvious unreliable scenario that is now the conspiracy. Stop obsessing over the NIST and giving them credit for being accurate because they have been proven wrong time and time again and have admitted it. Stop calling the demolition a conspiracy. The only question is whether or not the demolition was planted by terrorists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

(Please sign your name.) Maybe so. But by way of advise: on Wikipedia, we verify our claims by citing reliable sources—while with due weight, try to avoid original research. El_C 08:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

IP:, please sign any comment you may make and don't shout by inserting caps. Your so-called "experts" are nothing of the kind and your conspiracy theories belong in another place and certainly not in a factual Wikipedia article. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: I'm intrigued by your stance on this matter. The testimony of Peter Michael Ketcham, [1] a former NIST employee for 14 years working in the mathematical and computational science division, lucidly raises concerns over the standards of the NIST investigation on WTC 7, is he a reliable source? Also William Binney, [2] a former high ranking NSA officer, seems to say that the concerns are legitimate...They seem like smart scientifically minded people, hopefully you can put my mind at ease and give me good reason to ignore these whistleblowers?--Sparkyscience (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
No, those are not reliable sources. A major publication, media outlet, or peer-reviewed professional journal (not a conspiracy-theorist website and their YouTube videos) interviewing NIST principals involved directly in the WTC7 investigation (not one random former employee working in an uninvolved division), and that publication/source reaching the conclusion that there were specific weaknesses in the investigation, would be a reliable source. -Jordgette [talk] 18:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Jordgette sums it up correctly. You are relying on non-notable, non-involved folk as sources. I repeat conspiracy theories have no place in a factual Wikipedia article. However, there is a page for conspiracy theories and that is where the wacky contributions belong. David J Johnson (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

One of the most serious criticisms of the NIST paper by these and other individuals is that the data used in their model is classified due to "national security" it is therefore impossible to independently test and verify their theory. The NIST paper would not pass the peer review process of any self respecting academic journal because of this fact. Is anyone allowed to raise this concern without being branded a conspiracy theorist?--Sparkyscience (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really; raising such "concerns," introducing ad hoc hypotheses about classified documents (or Pentagon videos, or secret military demolition technology, etc.), and linking to YouTube videos by fringe 9/11 profiteers are pretty much only things that conspiracy theorists do. -Jordgette [talk] 01:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance on this matter Jordgette. I found the use of scare quotes, parenthesis to anchor associated nonsense and insinuation that these critics are financially motivated particularly persuasive in making me forget about the underlying substance of their argument.

I don’t want to be associated with the tinfoil-hat brigade who think we faked the moon landings or the earth is flat… so I will accept, merely by fiat, the NIST report as a “scientific” document. After all, intelligence services engaging in psychological operations to discredit pesky critics comes from a bygone era. [3] They don’t do that thing anymore…--Sparkyscience (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's put it concisely: Wikipedia isn't a forum for discussion of fringe theories or a means of validating them. Acroterion (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree Wikipedia is not a forum to advance fringe theories. To make my position absolutely clear all I am stating is the unremarkable objective fact that former government employees have made valid criticism of the NIST report. It is to be expected and completely normal for any supposedly scientific theory to be criticised – for example quantum electrodynamics is a truly great theory but fails to explain the mass of the electron. The theory in the NIST report has limitations and failures, just like any other. I’m not advocating that the article should give undue weight to this fact, a single sentence in the article will do. --Sparkyscience (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Quantum electrodynamics isn't the subject of conspiracy theories as far as I know. Until the mainstream media that Wikipedia uses to validate notability discuss the views of the people you mention it would be undue emphasis to include them, except perhaps in the conspiracy theory articles, again assuming it's been noticed in prominent media. Acroterion (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the discussion move to one of Wikipedia policy. I'm not advocating any notion of conspiracy - just objective facts on the theory advanced in the NIST report. Valid criticism has been published in reliable academic sources. In particular, an article in Europhysics News gives valid criticism;[1] crucially its conclusion does not advocate conspiracy, just unanswered questions. Europhysics News also published a note to the Editor by the aforementioned Peter Michael Ketcham [4].

Notability guidelines only apply to article creation, in the case of article content, there must be reliable sources and NPOV. There is no reason why Europhysics News does not constitute a reliable source given they also publish articles advocating the mainstream view of 9/11[2] That is they maintain a NPOV. Given all I am advocating is a single sentence saying NIST has been criticized i don't think this is undue weight given WIkipedia's own guidelines allow an article on Earth to mention the Flat Earth.--Sparkyscience (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The material that was published in by Jones et al in Europhysics News was repudiated by that publication, which changed its editorial procedures as a result. It is not usable except in the conspiracy articles. AE 911 Truth is a conspiracy promotion organization and is not usable. I'm not familiar with the 2017 EN publication and will take a look at it. Of course NIST has been criticized: the question is whether the criticism has originated from serious experts in the subject matter with credibility among their peers and the engineering community. Acroterion (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The source is not AE 911, the source is Europhysics News. The note from the Editors [5] is not a repudiation or retraction but a reaffirmation of the original editorial note in the Jones et al. (2016) article. The editorial oversight that was in place at Europhysics News both before and after publication of the article meets the current Wikipedia standard outlined in WP:RS nor can I see any history of a debate of Eurphysics News as a RS in WP:RSN. You cannot censor a particular article you don't like from an RS because you have an agenda against an affiliation of one of the coauthors; socially stigmatizing a coauthor because of an affilation does not change the objectivity or verifiability of the facts made in the article itself, this is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. For example, the statement:
"NIST has been criticized for refusing to release its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety” "
Is a verifiable fact and comes from a reliable source, nor is there any notion of unverifiable conspiracy in this statement. There is currently not one word of criticism of the NIST report in the current article, while only a minority of people have taken the time to vocally criticise the NIST report, this does not change the validity of the criticism and there must be some inclusion of this in the article as per WP:NPOV.--Sparkyscience (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The Europhysics news fiasco was discussed at length on a 9/11-related talkpage, and the Jones et al opinion piece is not usable as a reference on Wikipedia except with respect to Jones and conspiracy theories. You obviously didn't read the link you supplied - the last three paragraphs disown the Jones content and note changes to prevent similar incidents from happening again. The most EN could muster was the rather backhanded "Since some controversy remains, even among more competent people in the field..." What counts, which you do not seem to want to hear, is whether significant reputable specialists in building structural design and fire protection, not conspiracy enthusiasts or people with unrelated qualifications, have made substantive criticism. The "minority of people who have taken time to vocally criticize the NIST report" are conspiracy enthusiasts, and WP:FRINGE applies. Acroterion (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thank you for pointing out your previous discussion [6] on the EPN piece, i was not aware of it and it is useful to see what has been previously said. I can assure you I read the editors note, particularly the last three paragraphs, very carefully: It is not a repudiation nor a retraction. Not having a formal review/rejection policy does not preclude the use of an informal policy, which is well within the WP:RS rules, indeed it is self evident that the Jones et al. piece was informally reviewed as the editors added a note to the original article which states "we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors". The second editorial note explains, not retracts, why they added this note to the original article. They also state they do not endorse conspiracy theories, the editorial team of an academic journal or popular science magazine "obviously" never endorses the conclusions of its contributors - it is very common for a journal to contain pieces from different scientists that contradict each over, or indeed replies to each other, in the same issue - this is how science works - it does not render the publication unreliable. Similarly, amending the editorial policy does not mean that all previous published articles are no longer considered a RS under Wikipedia policy, the previous policy of informal review meets the standard.

Any journal article or contribution piece can generally be divided into conclusions which constitute original research (where extreme care must be taken to include in Wikipedia) and verifiable facts upon which these conclusions are based. A fact contained in one piece or the other cannot be censored because someone else believes the conclusions of the same paper to be erroneous. There can be a difference of opinion but not of fact. The Jones et al. paper is no different - its conclusions constitute original research and I do not see a justification for inclusion without multiple other RS citing them.. but the facts upon which the research is based i.e. the statement "NIST has been criticized for refusing to release its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety” is not a theory, it is not an opinion, it is not the conclusion of original research, WP:FRINGE does not apply because it is a verifiable objective fact contained in an article that was published in an RS.

To be clear I very much am listening to you points and respect your experience as an editor; I hope you can see that what we have here is a difference of interpretation that I hope we can resolve through cordial debate. It seems to me that no matter who wrote the EPN article they would be branded a "conspiracy theorist" and thus merely by virtue of this subjective label the facts contained within the article would also be labeled invalid. No reading of Wikipedia policy allows for such adhoc blacklisting when an author publishes in a RS. I think your agenda and interests are best served by inclusion of criticism of NIST as is required by WP:NPOV and also include "criticism of the criticism" for want of a better phrase... Resorting to adhoc censorship does you no good. --Sparkyscience (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't rejected criticism of NIST, just the Jones rehash of the same old conspiracy promotion which has never been accepted on Wikipedia and which is no more credible than it ever was. It's an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed paper, and it's been explicitly disowned by the publisher. Find some credible, specific content by recognized authorities in the field, Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Totally agree with Acroterion's comments above - yes it is rehash of the same old conspiracy promotion. It is time for Sparkyscience to drop these efforts, as I cannot see any consensus for inserting his/her ideas in a factual article.David J Johnson (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I shall quit commenting on this talk page (one thing we can agree on David!), as I think we've reached the point of going round in circles! :-)

I never said it was peer reviewed, neither is the NIST report and the article is no more an opinion piece then the Le & Bažant article. The editors highlight in the original article that it contains a speculative conclusion, as is completely normal in any popular science article; we see this all the time in science: the hypothesis of a multiverse is a bonkers idea for which there is no direct evidence. A speculation doesn't change the veracity of the facts upon which it is based, which are verifiable and in a RS. NIST not releasing data is a fact not an opinion. For all the reasons outlined above EPN have not redacted the article (which looks like this [7] [8]) and editors will never endorse conclusions of external authors - the editors note is just a well worded statement of the status quo. It is blatantly transparent that what is being presenting here is an argument from authority and social stigma rather than one of pure reason or implementation of WP policy. When all else fails scream "conspiracy theorist" to block awkward facts. I don't envy your job over the coming years... --Sparkyscience (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Jones, Steven; Korol, Robert; Szamboti, Anthony; Walter, Ted (2016). "15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses" (PDF). Europhysics News. 47 (4): 21–26. Bibcode:2016ENews..47...21J. doi:10.1051/epn/2016402. ISSN 0531-7479. 
  2. ^ Le, Jia-Liang; Bažant, Zdeněk P. (2017). "Mechanics-based mathematical studies proving spontaneity of post-impact WTC towers collapse" (PDF). Europhysics News. 48 (1): 18–23. doi:10.1051/epn/2017102. ISSN 0531-7479. 
The article on Earth does not mention "flat Earth" except in its proper historical context. Modern Flat Earth theories are discussed in the corresponding article. Similarly, "concerns about the roundness of the Earth" or "criticisms of NASA" would belong there. Would you really advocate inserting a mention of criticisms of NASA in the Earth article where, for example, Earth's radius or curvature is mentioned? "However, NASA's methodology has been criticized" just seems ludicrous to me. -Jordgette [talk] 18:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision undone?[edit]

Why was my edit reverted, with the reason 'conspiracy theory again', when I had written absolutely nothing about any sort of conspiracy???

this is the edition that was undone:

This is the text I had added:

As of April 2013, no scientific consensus has been reached as to what caused the building to collapse<ref>{{cite web |url= |format=PDF |title=WTC Destruction: An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature|author=Timothy E. Eastman, Ph.D. (Geophysics), and Jonathan H. Cole, P.E. |publisher=Journal of 9/11 Studies |accessdate=April, 2013}}</ref>. A NIST report released in November 2008 states that "the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."<ref name="ncstar1-a">{{cite book |url= |format=PDF |publisher=NIST |title=NIST NCSTAR1-A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 |date=November 2008 |accessdate=July 11, 2011 |archiveurl= |archivedate=July 21, 2011 |deadurl=no}}</ref>.

These "other buildings" did not sustain critical damage from debris falling from neighboring structures, in this case, WTC 1, the North Tower, which showered debris on WTC 7 as it collapsed.--MONGO 19:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The "Journal of 9/11 Studies" is not a reliable source, apparently not sufficiently notable to warrant its own WP article, and its content is concerned only with promoting conspiracy belief. So, yeah, you kind of did work conspiracy into the article. -Jordgette [talk] 21:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove "since-disproven" when referring to conspiracy theories on WTC 7[edit]

The words "since-disproven" do not conform to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy of Wikipedia. It has not been conclusively disproven and the majority of people who have studied the building have concluded that fires were not the primary factor in causing the building to collapse into its own footprint. There are thousands of scientists, architects, demolitionists, and physicists that would attest that fires did not bring down the building on September 11, 2001.

There are weaker buildings that have burned longer and with more intensity that did not collapse like WTC 7. There has never been a fire that has caused a building to collapsed in the manner of WTC 7. The countless buildings destroyed by explosives however, do match the destruction of WTC 7. Even if you believe that fires were the only cause of the collapse, you must acknowledge that "since-disproven" is postulating a stance which is not neutral.

SputnicK (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@SputnicK: The source verifying that is this article from Popular Mechanics. Before we go any further, it's important that you read that. After all, doing opposition research can be a good thing.
And regarding your second paragraph, you're fighting a hell of an uphill battle per our policy on original research. CityOfSilver 19:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Editors Sparkyscience and SputnicK need to be aware of the notice at the top of this talk page: "In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision." Let this be the required notice. Experienced editors know that on articles subject to discretionary sanctions, admins are not sympathetic to those pushing fringe or conspiratorial points of view. That is a fact, and both editors are calling attention to themselves with this clearly tendentious sequence of edits. -Jordgette [talk] 20:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not pushing a "fringe or conspiratorial point of view". Nor would I consider my request to be "tendentious" in the slightest, as is does not push a conspiratorial stance, but merely acknowledges it.

What I am requesting is that the article take a neutral standpoint, as is the standard on Wikipedia. I would like to resubmit my request after the conclusion of the two-year investigation of the collapse lead by Dr. Leroy Hulsey has been completed. (WTC 7 Evaluation) I believe it will remove what doubt remains in the public eye in regards to a conspiracy view of WTC 7 not being valid.

SputnicK (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@SputnicK: Did you read the relevant section in that Popular Mechanics article? It's only about 600 words long, and this message of yours makes no sense unless you didn't read it. CityOfSilver 02:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@CityOfSilver: I read the article and found it lacking in regards to supplying conclusive evidence for fires causing the collapse of WTC 7. I find my message makes perfect sense in presenting my POV. If you want evidence that addresses and contradicts the points brought up in the Popular Mechanics article, I suggest this video on WTC 7. (WTC 7 Evaluation October 2016 Update)
Trust me, however you might evaluate your own objectivity and neutrality, these edits will be found to be tendentious by administrators if and when it comes to that. Your link immediately above (YouTube videos are not reliable sources) only serves to seal that judgment. I've been around this block multiple times on this one page alone, and you're hardly the first to assert that the article needs to be more "neutral." If you spent a few minutes looking at the talk archives, you'd see how every editor who went down this path in the past crashed and burned and eventually learned how Wikipedia operates. It's up to you. -Jordgette [talk] 03:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There was a previous consensus on the article, now a new sentence has been crowbarred into the article without using the talk page, this is not allowed as per WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:NOCON ("In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal "). There is no consensus over this new sentence. For me this issue is very simple: "NIST found no evidence of conspiracy / it collapsed due to fire not explosives." is a factual true statement from the source cited; while the current "since disproven" statement is too broad, vague and is an includes opinion in the voice of the editor. Lets stick to objective facts. There is ongoing work at University of Alaska Fairbanks and University of Manchester which shows WTC 7 continues to be an area of academic research - it is not a closed area. The second point is what does this sentence add to the article which is not already covered elsewhere - it does not need mindless repeating.--Sparkyscience (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sparkyscience: Regarding the text ""it collapsed due to fire not explosives", what source are you using? CityOfSilver 16:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The same source - the Popular Mechanics article that was added to the article.--Sparkyscience (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sparkyscience: I was wondering because that article doesn't come within a mile of blaming the collapse solely on the fire. CityOfSilver 16:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It definitely blames fire as a factor but doesn't assign an exact proportion to which this factor was a cause of the collapse, it leaves open that it might be the primary factor, I'm more then happy to say it was damaged by debris as well. I've just amended a sentance in the article and paraphrased in the above what another editor has written.--Sparkyscience (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
have clarified the edit of Epicgenuis RE: fire.--Sparkyscience (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the revised sentence by Sparkyscience is a good compromise. I'm not sure what consensus was there before in regards to the statement about conspiracy theory, or the exact causes of the tower's collapse. epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Good stuff :-) As an aside I can see absolutely no breaches in policy whatsoever by @SputnicK: he made an legitimate edit, reverted, and then used the talk page so the threat of discretionary sanctions is empty verbiage.--Sparkyscience (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not an empty verbiage. Had he reverted again, he might be subject to a discretionary warning. You also reverted, but more than once in 24 hours, so technically you should be warned of the discretionary sanctions. That is not a punishment, but a reminder so that the person being warned doesn't continue their behavior to get blocked. epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah I see...declaring "Let this be the required notice" to a new editor when he hasn't broken any rules and stating that they will "crash and burn" definitely isn't WP:DONTBITE. I wouldn't waste time defending the bullying that occurs on this page.--Sparkyscience (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I would have gone with just advising him not to promote fringe theories (I think that's the word). It's not DONTBITE, it is just an advice. epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 7 World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 7 World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)