From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Remove "known toxin" from erucic acid[edit]

The section on erucic acid indicates it is a known toxin, and provides a source, but this is in direct contradiction to the Wiki page on erucic acid, which provides several sources indicating that there are no known indications of any adverse health effects. Some simple googling with phrases like "usda erucic acid safety" or "toxicity" turned up a few documents on erucic acid in various contexts, but no indication that it is toxic.

Im recommending it for removal, and will do so in a week or so if there is no objection (im assuming thats the proper procedure). Ronin2040 (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not change that. The erucic acid article appears to violate the "original research" policy WP:OR and using sources that do not meet WP:MEDRS. I just edited the erucic article to correct that. Thanks for pointing out the problem.Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Colza[edit]

Colza and Canola are two names for the same plant. Canola is a trademark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eur (talkcontribs) 10:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Different cultivars. Consider merging with Brassica rapa.Novangelis (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. This article now reads like an advertorial , encourages systemic bias, and makes a mess of the original definition (based on erucic acid content)(hence it now includes not one but a host of different cultivars). A particularly important individual cutlivar could have is own article but localised, geographical vernacular errors such as hovering the carpet, thermos flasks, writing with a biro and growing canola have no place on WP. A table has just appeared comparing just 'canola' with other vegetable oils. A more fitting table (for this article) would be a comparison of similar oilseed Brassica -(it includes not only Brassica rapa but napus and juncea species as well). Rather than the existing table that excludes other oilseed rape as though they don't exist. The existing table would be better off on that article or a separate List of oilseed rape cultivars. Like-wise, Colza should be merged. Also, there is some confusion over the generic names – (no doubt from editors reading the popular press). Farmers and industry refer to it as 'oil rapeseed' as a crop and rapeseed oil as the oil – generically speaking. It always gets listed in the ingredients list as simply 'vegetable oil'. This area need to be made more encyclopedic and less promotional.--Aspro (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's and example: List of tomato cultivars. If the list was just got going, others editors might be able to expand. This I think, would be more informative than the mess of (somewhat misleading) articles we have at present. --Aspro (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

North American POV[edit]

The article contains almost nothing about edible rapeseed production outside North America, and the perspective is very American too. It is a major crop throughout temperate regions of the world though not usually described as canola. I'm going to add a globalize tag. --Ef80 (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not the same thing. Canola is a low-acid cultivar specially developed in Canada. Ultra Venia (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Canadians and Americans constantly assert this, but they're wrong. Canola was one of the early low acid cultivars, but there are now lots of different ones, both GM and non GM. In North America and Australia any edible rapeseed oil is referred to as 'canola' while elsewhere it's just called rapeseed oil or 'vegetable oil', but it's all the same stuff. If Canola isn't just a regional name for edible rapeseed oil in current usage, please produce a suitable reference. --Ef80 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Or, how about YOU provide sources to support your statements? If you're right, then valid sources should not be difficult to find. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The biggest producer of edible rapeseed oil in the world is China. Do Americans consider this to be 'canola' or not? If not, what is the difference? --Ef80 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Who says they are? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Rapeseed_oil#Production --Ef80 (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
That article also says that Canola is a variety or subset of rapeseed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
There are only two major modern uses for rapeseed oil: food and biodiesel. Significant amounts (maybe 10%) of North American and European production is processed into biodiesel thanks to subsidies, but the rest is used for food (cooking oil, margarine etc). China doesn't have a significant biodiesel industry so almost all the 13.5 million tonnes produced in 2009 will be low acid food grade. To repeat, is this stuff considered to be canola or not, and if not what is it? --Ef80 (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is a fascinating discussion. Here is what USDA says which is about authoritative for what "Americans" say as anything (from here):

The dramatic success of the canola brand in North America has caused the word "canola" to become synonymous with edible rapeseed in much the same way the word "Xerox" is understood to be a photocopy. Today, nearly all production in North America uses edible rapeseed varieties, and discussions of production typically refer only to canola. Other areas of the world where canola varieties are less widely used continue to use the term "rapeseed" for both edible and inedible varieties. This web page uses terminology familiar in North America.

Crop History

Since World War II, global production of rapeseed and canola has grown dramatically. During WWII, inedible rapeseed oil was used as a high-temperature lubricant on steam ships, but with the switch to diesel engines in the following decade, industrial demand declined. Initially, consumer demand for rapeseed oil was negligible because it naturally contains high amounts of erucic acid. Erucic acid was enough of a concern that in 1956, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned rapeseed oil for human consumption. In addition, demand for rapeseed meal was low because of high levels of glucosinolates, a compound that at high doses depresses animal growth rates.

By the early 1970s, plant breeders developed low-erucic acid rapeseed (LEAR) varieties that also had low glucosinolate content. In 1978, the Western Canadian Oilseed Crushers Association registered these varieties with the name "canola" for marketing reasons. Over the next 10 years, European seed producers also developed LEAR varieties, which they dubbed "double-zero" or "canola-equivalent."

Because of the higher palatability of LEAR varieties, FDA granted the oil produced from LEAR varieties Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) status on January 1, 1985. With its low level of saturated fat, LEAR oil appealed to health-conscious consumers, and production increased steadily.

In general the section on Production and Trade could easily be expanded a bit to include information on regions outside North America. Ditto the history section (there is content for citing in the USDA article above and plenty of others) Ef80, why don't you just add history information, and production information from other regions and thereby globalize the article? There is a ton of information on global production here: I cannot imagine that anybody would object. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the article as it stands is it confuses Canola (the 1978 Canadian cultivar) with canola (the North American term for all edible rapeseed oil). It should really just be about Canola, with more general info moved to rapeseed. I hesitate to do this because I know what the reaction of (some) American editors will be, and I'm also not an expert on the subject. --Ef80 (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I see your point. This is something I really struggle with in wikipedia.... articles that are meant to provide detailed information on one aspect of a bigger topic sometimes expand to cover stuff that really should be handled under the bigger topic. I am not sure that there should be even a separate article for canola.... there was a merge discussion back in 2007 that agreed to the merge but nobody did anything. -- I might be bold and do the merge this month.Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
We really need a new or drastically rewritten article Edible rapeseed oil with canola as a redirect for places where this term is used. The article would have an intro explaining how low acid cultivars were developed in various places, then have a series of regional headings explaining terminology, legislation, cultivars and production methods in North America, Europe, China, Australia etc. I don't have anywhere near the level of expertise needed to do this and it will be a lot of work for whoever takes it on. --Ef80 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I would support a merge to “Rapeseed” --Aspro (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. This article covers three topics, without clear distinction, and has a heavy American-bias (as unfortunately does much of Wikipedia).¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalcourtier (talkcontribs) 00:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Moved claim from History to Erucic acid section[edit]

Moved the following claim: "The Chinese and Indians use rapeseed oils that are unrefined (natural)" and modified to reflect what the source was about; i.e, it was not really about the history of canola, but the potential health effects of high erucic acid oils. Not sure if it should even remain where I moved it, but the source is fairly recent, even if the claim is a bit broad (author contends that Indians and Chinese suffered no noticeable health effects for thousands of years...) Richigi (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Canada Low Acid?[edit] makes the following claim:

"Christened “Canola” from “Can” (for Canada) and “ola” (for oil low acid)..."

...but the source is a bit dodgy. Does anyone have a more reliable source for this claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

How about this source: Or the Canada Canloa Council: Opendestiny (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Omega-3 Fatty acid[edit]

This article states canola oil is "a significant source of the essential omega-3 fatty acid is associated with reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.", whereas the Omega-3 fatty acid page patently contradicts this claim. If the claim is controversial, then this should be noted in the article's text. (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Rapeseed[edit]

There is much overlap with the Rapeseed page. I propose Canola deal with the oil and Rapeseed with the plant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't think that's realistic. From an encyclopedic point of view, canola should be merged into rapeseed but there is so much commercial pressure (upon WP (see debates about paid editing on Wikipedia)), that interested organisations will fight-tooth-and-nail to make a crop of canola (and it products, e.g., canola oil) appear to be something unique and different from a crop of rapeseed (and it products, e.g., rapeseed oil).--Aspro (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
what actual reason do you have to cite paid editing with respect to discussions/arguments on this article in particular? Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Global Production of Canola[edit]

I noticed that the "global production of Canola" statistic that is cited (58.4 tonnes) is actually the global production of rapeseed; however Canola and rapeseed are not interchangable terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opendestiny (talkcontribs) 17:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Make more distinction between the canola plants and other rapeseed varieties. They are different.[edit]

Moved latest contribution from annon to bottom of talk page (from the top)--Aspro (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Canola oil is made from the canola plant. This is a different plant from the rapeseed plant. Please let's correct the factual error that says canola oil is from the rapeseed plant. Unlike the rapeseed plant, canola oil contains only low levels of erucic acid; levels that are acceptable for humans.

When you say 'plant' do you really mean cultivar? Being an encyclopedia we need to get these things right.--Aspro (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Dangerous if heated?[edit]

The Cooking oil article says canola oil can easily become toxic when heated; but this article makes no mention of that fact, and states it is safe to use for making food... So which is it, safe or potentially toxic? --TiagoTiago (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. That is WP:FRINGE and I have removed that content from the other article. Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion by Aspro re toxicity[edit]

Having a little edit war here - Aspro would you please explain the reasoning in your long edit note, here? thx Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Un-weaned neonates drink milk, their livers have no need to produce the enzyme to metabolise erucic acid because milk does not contain it. The studies show that on introduction, their livers then ramp up and start to metabolize it. Just like the kidneys adapt to remove high dietary salt. Does that article state that salt it a known toxin -which it is.? Sure you don't need high erucic acid in baby milk formulae powder either– the article mentions this. Your trying to introduce a context that is misleading in respect of the article as a whole. I think you are Wikilawyering because you’re demanding I explain myself first... for your edits. --Aspro (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Please don't get personal and read motivations into things - wikipedia is collaborative and i am trying to understand the rationale for the change you made. I understand well that everything is toxic at a given dose - including water. i am not sure what point you are making though - can you please explain? The best source that i have been able to find on erucic acid is this one - and while it is clear that there is no evidence of human harm from EA, it does take the animal studies seriously enough to set the NOEL based on them. it is not a big deal today anymore since there is no high EU products available in much of the western world... but please, what is your point? thx Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Reduced lung function[edit]

There is a wide study that is accepted as being a real issue in numerous online sources

Im trying to share but keep facing issues putting it up from wiki editors - please help me find a source you are happy with rather than taking me down — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamhead (talkcontribs) 14:45, 5 June 2014‎ (UTC)

It is great that you want to improve the article. However the content you are trying to add is health related, and the sourcing guideline called "MEDRS" applies here. Please see WP:MEDRS. Neither the source you are bringing, nor the underlying research paper, are reliable souorces for health-related content. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Goitrogenic content of Rapeseed[edit]

Because rapeseed is part of the Brassicaceae family, AKA Cruciferous vegetables, it contains Goitrogenic compounds, as Rapeseed is already listed on the 'Goitrogen' page. Could someone kindly insert more information about the goitrogens found in rapeseeds, as this directly relates to the mass consumption of Canola oil. Goitrogen consumption can contribute to development of Thyroid cancer in prone individuals, especially when the individual also has a deficiency in Iodine, used for production of the crucial thryoid hormones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgfduck (talkcontribs) 04:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for posting and pointing out the Goitrogen article. That article is a disaster and does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Please do not have any health concerns based on it. Jytdog (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
additional note - one of the few appropriate articles cited in the [[Goitrogen] page is [ this one} (and even it is old and we shouldn't be using it!) says the following - am quoting it since it is behind a paywall:

Brassica vegetables have a goitrogenic potential [7,17]. The goitrogenic effects have been ascribed to hydrolysis products of glucosinolates, in particular thiocyanate ion and 5-vinyloxazolidine-2~thione (goitrin). The mechanism of goitrogenicity seems to be different between thiocyanate ion and goitrin. The thiocyanate ion would compete with iodine for uptake by the thyroid gland. Thus, its goitrogenicity depends upon the iodine content of the diet. Goitrin would interfere with thyroid hormone synthesis and would therefore be goitrogenic irrespective of the iodine status. In several studies goitrogenicity of rapeseed glucosinolates was examined [217]. In animals, inhibition of thyroid hormone synthesis, thyroid hypertrophy and goitre occurred, depending upon the dose of rapeseed glucosinolates tested and the animals used. In swine, reacting strongly to the goitrogenic activity of rapeseed glucosinolates [217], this is particularly a problem since rapeseed contributes largely to their food intake. Feeding a diet with a high content of Brussels sprouts to rats resulted in decreased levels of circulating thyroxin and in an increase of morphological thyroid activation [15]. In human, no effect of a high but realistic intake of Brussels sprouts on the thyroid function was found [219,220].(emphasis added)

please note the last sentence. i do realize that the sentence is about brussels sprouts but a) it is brassica and b) it shows you that animal studies need to be handled carefully - they don't always translate directly to humans. Also this article is about potential anti-cancer effects of these same compounds in brassica. This article, and others like it, are the way that scientists communicate with each other while they try to figure stuff out. They are not meant for consumption by the public, and are very much not intended for anyone to take action on.Jytdog (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Australian production figures wrong[edit]

"Australia produced 3450 Mega tonnes of canola seed in 2014" is clearly wrong, that's half a tonne of Canola for every person on earth!!! The "units" on the table in the reference are not clearly explained.

I found this that gives a figure of 2.946 million tonnes for 2012, that makes more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Canola oil is supposedly rather unhealthy - the opposite of what the mainstream knowledge is?!?[edit]

I'll just copy this link here. Hope someone can verify and maybe at least partially edit the Wikipedia article as the claims that canola oil is really healthy sound a bit (if not a lot) off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

that is not an acceptable source in WP. Please see WP:MEDRS for explanation of the kinds of sources that are. Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Erucic acid IS known to be associated with toxic effects in humans[edit]

1) The cited reference "no health effects have been associated with consumption by humans of erucic acid[38]" does not make that statement at all. What it concludes is only that "... the available evidence does not indicate an association between myocardial lesions, of the type observed in rats, or significant myocardial lipidosis, and the consumption of rapeseed oil." This review article only examines erucic acid as a cause of myocardial lesions in humans, only one specific health effect, not all heath effects; erucic acid is associated with many other health effects than just myocardial lesions in animals and humans.

Thus the cited reference does not support the claim that references it.

2) From the Mayo Clinic website: ""Rapeseed oil contains very high levels of erucic acid, a compound that in large amounts can be toxic to humans. "

The Mayo Clinic website is a valid wikipedia source for the review of medical information and is saying that erucic acid is toxic to humans. Therefore at the very least how can it be valid to state that erucic acid is not toxic to humans in this article?

3) Canola is not just human food, but used as animal feed. In 2007-2008, 2.5 million metric tons of canola meal was used as animal feed around the world: page 3, Canola Council of Canada, "Canola meal Feed Guide", Therefore toxicology data for animals has a place in this article.

4) From the highly regarded medical textbook on toxicology, most recent edition, there is a paragraph on the toxicity of erucic acid (p. 656-657): "Growth suppression, myocardial fatty infiltration, mononuclear cell infiltration, and were observed in weanlging rats fed with erucic acid...In addition, ducklings showed hydropericardium and cirrhosis, and guinea developed splenomegaly and hemolytic anemia."

"In humans, however, although ...Lorenzl's oil (oleic and erucic acid) ... leads to thrombocytopenia and lympopenia... adverse effects from dietary consumption of erucic acid have not been reported.", pg. 657, Hayes' Principles and Methods of Toxicology, Sixth Edition A. Wallace Hayes, Claire L. Kruger CRC Press, Oct 10, 2014 - Medical - 2184 pages

The section on erucic acid toxicology in this long established medical reference, which is tertiary reference that summarizes peer-reviewed articles, is saying that erucic acid is toxic to various animals causing a number of different health effects. It also says that Lorenzo's Oil, a medication containing erucic acid, causes disease in humans, but that consuming erucic acid in the diet has no reported health effects. That is what the actual reference says, not original research.

I don't believe that summarizing these valid references is original research. A valid summary of all of these high quality references could be:

"Canola oil contains small amounts of erucic acid, known to be toxic in animals and humans at high enough levels, but there is no evidence of health risks to humans when consumed in the diet.[refs] "

This is what the article stated before the last major revision to the sentences on erucic acid. MongoNut (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You have constructed (perhaps unwittingly) a complex question. One could add to the article that in a 'balanced diet', no toxic effects have ever been-observed in human studies but no studies have ever been done upon this. Other than anecdotal surveys, that in India, populations which traditionally cook with mustard oil suffer less heart disease than other cohorts. So in that respect mustard oil appears to have a protective effect. So I won't add that to the article. Read the references of the animal studies and you will find that the oil was not being given as part of a balanced diet but as the 'only' nutrition. One can expect problems in this laboratory setting because even too much water can produce water toxicity too. So, to use results from such extreme animal laboratory trials and attempt to apply them as a-proven-known and hold them true for the general population is misguided. Neither was there any double blind trial ever done on Lorenzo's oil. We can only add to this article what we have good secondary sources for. --Aspro (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
same question was posted at Talk:Erucic acid and i responded there. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

In the dozens of animal studies, (whose results are summarized in the tertial, medical reference book I cited), the amount erucic acid in the diet varied greatly, it was not always the only oil fed. In any case, to discount the medical reference book on toxicology, which says erucic acid causes diseases in animals, on the basis of the how much they were fed, would be original research- the wikipedia authors' own reasoning. The textbook itself is not ambiguous on the toxicity of erucic acid in animals, which is a fact that should be mentioned. Those studies only prove it is toxic to animals, not humans, and I am not suggesting the animals studies should be used to support toxicity in humans. Only exactly what the reference itself states.

This defines a secondary source:

"A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations."

The reference I cited "Principles and Methods of Toxicology" is a professional book, a respected current toxicology reference, which uses the Lorenzo's oil results to conclude that the oil can result in human disease. To debate their conclusion because it was not a double blind study is the wikipedia authors' own research. The reference itself concludes that it does cause disease. The dose of erucic acid in the oil is much larger than people would get from dietary canola oil, so that it is fair to state that while erucic acid is toxic to humans in large enough doses, there is no evidence of health risks from dietary consumption... that is what the reference itself states.

A review of this book which is a widely recognized reference:

"Wallace-Hayes has engaged over 90 distinguished investigators to contribute to this new edition. There is also a chapter dedicated to … Statistics … the information is presented in a logical sequence and it is an excellent reference source. I would recommend this book to any working one aiming to study in the area of safety sciences and it is a necessity for all those working in this area." —Shirley Price in BTS Newsletter, Issue 32 in 2008

Also, the cited reference [38] presently in the article to support the claim "no health effects have been associated with consumption by humans of erucic acid[38]" does not make that statement at all. That claim should be corrected to fit what the reference states.

The revisions to the article removed an accurate statement supported by a medical reference secondary source, and replaced it with an inaccurate statement not supported by tne New Zealand government's review report. "Food Standards Australia New Zealand Food" is a government agency, and I am not sure in any case that it qualifies as a major health organization; however as I said it doesn't support the claim that cites it. On the other hand the Mayo Clinic is a major health organization, and I have cited the Mayo Clinic that erucic acid can be toxic to humans in large enough doses (see 2) above).

MongoNut (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Your comments regarding Erucic acid should be paced on that talk page -not here.--Aspro (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canola. 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) 18:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)