User talk:Grahamboat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

PRR locomotive classification[edit]

Thanks for your note regarding this article and "broken links" I caused. The manual of style calls for links to not normally be used in headings. Accordingly, AWB removes them as a matter of course. Typically the alternative is to use the linked term in the body under the heading and link it there. --LilHelpa (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits[edit]

See below:

/Sandbox

edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on NPR. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. aprock (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Aprock. Thanks for pointing out that I was in violation of 3RR. I lost track. I always used the talk page before editing. I am sure neither of us wants to engage in edit-warring so let’s commit to reaching a consensus before any further edits on NPR. Thanks.Grahamboat (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

NPR edits[edit]

Thanks for catching my mistake on the (federal,) state and local. I misread the preceding text. You are correct, the source indicates 5.8% from the sum of those sources, not just state and local.

By the way, it looks like we're all working on a solution for the "indirect government" funidng percentage. I think there's probably a really good combination between your text and references, and the comment DRRL made. Take a look at the Talk if you get a chance.

Thanks!Jbower47 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Friendly hello[edit]

Hello, I'm a retired Wikipedian, and I was curious about understanding something a little bit of a side-topic to the Weiner debates. My question is (and I'll post a follow-up question if you'll allow) is why you believe that his resignation lessens the significance of the past 2-3 weeks? I'm sure you heard all the Breitbart stuff too, and followed this just as much as I have, if not more. I'm curious why you think his resignation "stops all this" rather than it marking the culmination of the buildup, and the beginning of the end... Sorry if I got a little artistic, but I saw your edit history and I admire your passion. I was also extraordinarily passionate about Wikipedia 2-3 years ago. So why do you think this leap of logic is kosher sequiter? It seems like you're saying "because of this, therefore that" when I kinda saw it the artistic way I described. The scandal now has a beginning, build-up, climax, culmination, and now it's winding down to its ending. In my heart, I think he resigned to "re-commit" to what matters most--his wife Uma and his unborn daughter. I think I explained my thoughts pretty well about how the resignation kinda "fits" into a beautiful month-long event which has tons of artistic value, storyline value, and has many moral/ethical/family lessons as well. 67.77.168.127 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello 67.77.168.127. I don’t think the significance has lessened. All the germane facts should be included in the Main article. However, much of the detail in daughter article is no long relevant or is over covered. Pelosi’s call for an investigation is now moot. The five sentences calling for resignation can be handled in one. The poll information no longer has much significance. The time-line, which keeps appearing and reappearing, is redundant. The article is starting to look like a daily tabloid. In six months most of the minutia will be gone. As others have suggested perhaps it is too early to make a change. I am not suggesting minimizing the noteworthy facts of the scandal – just condensing them into the Main article. BTW starting 6/18 I will be away until 6/27. Thanks. Grahamboat (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the stellar response! I agree that the article, if it is to be kept, will require some work. It's easy to criticize a page in its current form. On Sunday, I'll spend about an hour trying to make some productive edits to the scandal article. I agree that the Pelosi investigation is now a moot point, but from a biographical POV, this article is crucial to be included in an eternal encyclopedia like the one we're all building. Have a great 9-day vacation, and I look forward to collaborating on the article some more when you get back. Take care, 67.77.168.127 (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm trying to start work again on the Weiner article. I know we have differing viewpoints, which is why I'd like to invite you back over there again and bring your shovel (unless you have a map, lol) and I'd like to have a civil discussion over at the article's talk page, and see what unfolds organically, ya know? I hope your vacation went well, and that you missed Wikipedia. Cheers 67.77.168.127 (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 May 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 13:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Second Amendment Collective-Rights History pre-Heller[edit]

Please review prior to editing or commenting further on the Second Amendment. I have posted it on the Talk Page as well, but I'm reaching out to you and all other editors personally because I sincerely believe when you review the evidence and when you search for contrary evidence, you will see I am correct about this history.


The law WAS collective only prior to Heller. If I show you 3 cases and several commentaries by irrefutably accurate sources and you cannot show me a single case from 1939 to 2000 to refute it, you have to accept that history is history.

Here are some quotes from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nra-money-helped-reshape-gun-law/2013/03/13/73d71e22-829a-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

In 1977 at a Denver hotel, Don Kates paced a conference room lecturing a small group of young scholars about the Second Amendment and tossing out ideas for law review articles. Back then, it was a pretty weird activity in pursuit of a wacky notion: that the Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm.

“This idea for a very long time was just laughed at,” said Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, a chair endowed by the National Rifle Association. “A lot of people thought it was preposterous and just propaganda from gun nuts.” ...

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Before the Heller decision, the Supreme Court and lower courts had interpreted the language as “preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias,” according to a Congressional Research Service analysis.

“It was a settled question, and the overwhelming consensus, bordering on unanimity, was that the Second Amendment granted a collective right” enjoyed by the states, not individuals, Bogus said. Under this interpretation, the Constitution provides no right for an individual to possess a firearm.

Lund [Remember he's the NRA-endowed Second-Amendment professor!] agreed that there was a consensus but said it was “based on ignorance.”

OK, you don't trust the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the National Rifle Association-endowed professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment? How about trusting the courts themselves? Just read these three:

- Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)

- United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) (“[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.”)

- Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”)

All of them cited Miller. All of them were the law of the land. There's not a single case in all of American history in any court state or federal that found an individual right to bear arms absent service in a militia and struck down a gun law as unconstitutional prior to 2000. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any case that says so.

Furthermore, there is not a single President prior to 2000 that stated he believed the Supreme Court conferred an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment absent service in a militia. Even Reagan didn't believe it. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any President that stated this position prior to 2000.

Truth is truth. If you don't like truth, you should not be editing wikipedia. Many editors here, I know you believe otherwise. But whoever told you a lie was true was mistaken. Read my sources. Then look for reliable sources on your own. When you can't find any (and if you do, I'll give you $100), I would respectfully request that all of you withdraw your objections. If you don't, then you are clear POV-pushers and should not be editing wikipedia.

Otherwise, if the only way to remove unreliable sources in wikipedia is to put up a request for comment and/or mediation, let's do it. I'll bet my reliable sources against all of your absence of sources any day. There is nothing wrong with admitting you are wrong. People are trying to revise history and some people fall prey to it. Maybe you read something on the Internet from some ignorant blogger and believed it to be true. I respectfully request you look at the sources and come to the only accurate conclusion.

My history is backed up by EVERY judicial decision and EVERY President prior to 2000 and the Library of Congress, and the Congressional Research Service, and the NRA-endowed Professor of the Second Amendment, not to mention the NYT and the WP. And the contrary position is backed up by some sincere mistaken beliefs AND NOT A SINGLE SOURCE.

An honest and ethical wikipedia editor cannot look truth in the face and declare it untrue without a single reliable source to back it up. I will post this on the talk page of every editor who has edited or commented recently because I sincerely want all of you to review the sources before further editing or commenting.

Further sources:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf (Congressional Research Service)

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php (Library of Congress)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html (New York Times)

GreekParadise (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Answered on 2A | talk page. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Peacedove.svg

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Second Amendment to the Constitution".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
  • It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
  • It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
  • It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
  • It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
  • It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
  • Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
  • Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
  • Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
  • If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 03:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Please do not blog or conter blog. Use the proper format. Direct personal comments to the talk page of the user. No personal attacks. This note is about behavior not content. J8079s (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Copy and paste[edit]

I hope this is what you meant one thread on this is more than enough. J8079s (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry maybe I’m missing something. How did the page go from 353,097 bytes to 340,408 bytes if you did not remove something? What authorization are you using to unilaterally determine where the tread belongs? I think any possible resolution will happen on 2A talk page. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
It's all there as far as I can tell. Making the same post over and over is WP:Disruptive. With the thread over there we can move on. If you will not un-re-revert we will have the same mess again. What ever you decide you must help police the talk page per guide lines. thank you J8079s (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have sent the Second Amendment article to dispute resolution.[edit]

Please feel free to comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution GreekParadise (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)I've also posted a RfC. Please help resolve this.GreekParadise (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

dr[edit]

Just in case you noticed that the DRN listing of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was closed, please note that it has been reopened and your participation there would be very much appreciated. — Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Cassatt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Bard (horse) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prada gender discrimination case may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 08 January 2014}}</ref> Prada denied all charges and countersued Bovrisse for defamation.<ref>((cite web | url=http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2010/08/25/national/prada-countersues-plaintiff-
  • Minoru Matsutani | date= Aug 25, 2010 | publisher= The Japan Times | accessdate=08 January 2014}}</ref> The case generated worldwide attention and Bovrisse received the support of many women’s

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks.Grahamboat (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments:[edit]

Grahamboat - You have been changing the contents siding Prada. We find many of your explanation and edits discriminating against women and the objective of civil case distorted. Your facts should come from official testimonies, NGO reports and media based on these actual documents. We made changes to make it from social improvement perspective which is the vision of Wikipedia.

We put back the facts concluded from international NGO reports and legal testimonials shared by media. Distorting the legal case facts by your individual opinion is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.188.116.119 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello 106.188.116.119

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

Also it is customary place your post at the bottom of the TALK PAGE.
Regarding your edits to Prada gender discrimination case there are several errors:
  • your edit removed a POV tag without any discussion on the article talk page.
  • one of your refs lead to a dead link.
  • changing “v.” to “to” makes no sense.
  • you added back a duplication.
  • your refs do not support your or Rina Bovrisse’s claims.
  • do not write in the third person.
I reverted your edits and invite you to the article TALK PAGE where you will need to substantiate your claims. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


Grahamboat: Thank you for correcting some technical issues. You need to be careful about how you write about women's rights social issues. Many of your edits are discriminating women and your women's rights knowledge should follow updated legislations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamptou (talkcontribs) 16:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello User talk:Hamptou

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  1. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

I always try to respect woman’s rights. In this case I believe you are confusing women’s rights with a claim of an individual. A claim that was rejected by a court of law. To try to spin it otherwise is POV.
Regarding your edits to Prada gender discrimination case there are several errors:
  • you need to use the edit summary.
  • your edit removed a POV tag without any discussion on the article talk page.
  • one of your refs lead to a dead link.
  • changing “v.” to “to” makes no sense.
  • you added back a duplicate paragraph for the third time.
  • your refs do not support your or Rina Bovrisse’s claims.
I reverted your edits and invite you to the article TALK PAGE where you will need to substantiate your claims. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for alerting other editors to the soapbox that was Prada gender discrimination case and doing so in a civil way. NeilN talk to me 05:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN for the kind words. Grahamboat (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Talen Energy (March 19)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lixxx235 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
--L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Grahamboat, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Talen Energy has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Talen Energy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Fiddle Faddle 22:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Talen Energy[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Talen Energy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This company does not even exist. "Talen Energy is a proposed new electric generation company". It isn't sufficiently notable to be considered encyclopedic content if it doesn't exist yet.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. FeralOink (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi FeralOink, Thanks for your comments. I respectfully disagree with your observations for the following reasons taken from WP: NOTE and WP:CBALL:
Why the Talen Energy article does not fall under WP:NOTCRYSTAL guidelines.
  • The event is verifiable – numerous reliable independent secondary sources have commented.
  • The event is noteworthy – large company noted in mainstream news
  • The event will almost certainly to take place – most analysts expect 2nd quarter 2015 completion; no speculation here.
  • There is no undue bias
  • There is no attempt of advertising
  • The event is already in progress – offices exist, a CEO has been named.
  • There is no OR
Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for your kind words! Warm regards --Neutralitytalk 17:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ron Paul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SEC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done fix Disambiguation error. Cheers.Grahamboat (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Grahamboat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem on USS Henderson (AP-1)[edit]

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)