User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Study reveals bot-on-bot editing wars raging on Wikipedia's pages[edit]

"Since Wikipedia launched in 2001, its millions of articles have been ranged over by software robots, or simply 'bots', that are built to mend errors, add links to other pages, and perform other basic housekeeping tasks.

"In the early days, the bots were so rare they worked in isolation. But over time, the number deployed on the encyclopedia exploded with unexpected consequences. The more the bots came into contact with one another, the more they became locked in combat, undoing each other's edits and changing the links they had added to other pages. Some conflicts only ended when one or other bot was taken out of action.

" 'The fights between bots can be far more persistent than the ones we see between people,' said Taha Yasseri, who worked on the study at the Oxford Internet Institute. 'Humans usually cool down after a few days, but the bots might continue for years.' "

Source: [1] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Pretty magnificent example of hyperbole. --NeilN talk to me 22:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Funny as hell....thanks Guy Macon. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Relevant: Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars § (Ro)bot wars --Fixuture (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised one of the bots didn't have the guts to take the other one to AN/I or ask for a third opinion, on in this severe case of ambivalence and indecision a second opinion might have done the trick. Bot therapy?  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

To give context to their statement "The English version saw bots meddling with each other’s changes on average 105 times a decade" The English version of Wikipedia has seen 660 million edits in the last decade. I suspect the times when we have actually used a bot to reverse the actions of another bot is rather more frequent than 104. For example after the intrawiki links were moved to Wikidata we used a bot to remove millions of the now redundant links, many of which were originally bot added. ϢereSpielChequers 07:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe that they were only referring to bots edit warring with other bots, not to bots reverting other bots. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but 104 such glitches in 660 million edits at least 104 million of which will have been bot edits would be a stunningly impressive result for our bot operators. I'd bet the true figure is higher than 104, the acceptable figure would certainly be higher than 104. For this to be a problem worthy of saying that bot edit wars were "raging" on Wikipedia it would need to be much much more common, a one in a thousand edit occurrence would be a real problem though calling it "raging" would still be hyperbole. Vandalism, spam, edit conflicts, addition and removal of trivia and unsourced information, these are all raging conflicts on Wikipedia, bots edit warring with each other, I'd like to see multiple recent diffs before I'd accept that as a real let alone raging problem. ϢereSpielChequers 14:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC
Certainly sounds like a yawner, rather than a 'rager' - 'bots do stuff, bot like', does not even approach stunning. Also, the bots never 'heated up', like people. So, of course, they never 'cooled down.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
If we add a rule that says that more successful bots may reproduce more, then it becomes artificial life which may eventually lead to intelligent bots. Count Iblis (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
XKCD: Robot Apocalypse --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Top down design doesn't lead to good results, bottom up design using genetic algorithms can lead to better results, take e.g. human beings arising as a result of just the chemistry of simple organic molecules. Count Iblis (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── However, top-down design works well if you're God, or Einstein predicting the curvature of starlight around a strong gravitational source (Sun), or the expanding universe until Einstein tried bottom-up by adding the infamous kludged "cosmological constant" to force steady state universe, only to find the bottom-up data was wrong and later Hubble Telescope confirmed universe will expand without end, and mankind has "forever" to explore the Universe. I have concluded both top-down +bottom-up should be used, as Plato's top-down Earth was a stationary sphere, while Aristotle's bottom-up world was a pie plate rotating daily but still a flat Earth model. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wikid77: No. Aristotle did not believe the earth was flat. Much false information about how early scholars understood the earth was spherical is caused by the Myth of the flat Earth used to falsely accuse the Church of beliefs it did not hold. I remember being taught as a youth that Columbus was an early advocate for a spherical earth and the resistance of by those in power against his calculations. Of course, in fact, those who insisted he was wrong were correct, and his crew would have died if he had not bumped into the unknown continent of North America, which he incorrectly thought was India. Accurate estimates of the circumference of the earth were known as early as 300 B.C. by Eratosthenes.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Having now read parts of the actual report I see the story is somewhat different to that reported by the press. The bots concerned were adding and removing wikilinks, and the problem such as it was stopped in 2013 when such things moved to Wikidata. Having sorted out a few intrawiki anomalies myself in that era, one problem was that unless you went to all the languages that an article was in the bots would merely reinstate the link. ϢereSpielChequers 21:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

And now for the science...[edit]

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"Internationalists" aka globalization promoters effect on Wikipedia[edit]

Jimbo, 2 questions.

1 What do you think about the importance of the self declaration of many important people as them being an "internationalist"? For example, David Rockefeller made a somewhat bizarre and defensive statement embracing the term: "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." Are these these self declarations important enough to be emphasized in a Blp?
2 There seems to be a widespread growing divide and polarization, in Europe particularly, between the political leaders who mostly identify as internationalists and the people/voters who prefer nationalism, as with the Brexit vote. I think national sovereignty and globalization are mutually exclusive, what do you think ? And how does this growing divide impact the reliable sources we use? Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Not just Rockefeller. 174.16.120.139 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Short answer to number 1. A person's politics should be reflected in an article about them to the same extent that the reliable sources mention it.
Number 2 can be addressed from many different directions, but I'd say first that if you are looking for the meaning of life in an encyclopedia, you're looking in the wrong place. Second, very many Wikipedians are internationalists - after all on en:Wiki we have to deal with Brits, Irish, Americans, Canadians, Ozzies, Kiwis, Indians of at least 2 types, South Africans, all sort of Europeans who speak English as their language of education, work, homelife, or just as a useful 2nd language. Third, you seem to assume that the nation state is the natural way that the world works, but it really is only about 200 years old (as the major form of political organization). Four, you ignore that political, technological, and cultural integration has been bringing us all closer together for millenia. Sometimes it goes faster or slower, sometimes we get it wrong and have to back up and try again, but we are still coming closer together all the time. As an illustration consider the US political system over the last 150 years. In 1867, large railroad sytems were just coming into existence, farmers could drive their horse drawn wagons about 10 miles into the nearest city to bring their harvest to market, and return home the same day, and the county was the governmental unit that most affected most people. In 1917 the railroad networks were well established and automobiles (and paved roads) were just coming in. A farmer's harvest might travel a couple of hundred miles in one day. And the state was the political unit that most affected most people. In 1967, computerized communication systems were just coming in, harvests would travel several hundred miles in a day, and the national (federal government most affected most people. Do you see a pattern here?
Finally Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for."
Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Yanni says something similar to "Imagine" at his concerts. I see the pattern, but Brexit may have been the first of many tears in the pattern. I think the more nationalistic publications are likely to gain strength at the same time as the historically reliable main stream sources are, at least in my opinion, becoming much less reliable with their details and certainly less neutral. Nocturnalnow (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe that first tear was the dissolution of the Soviet Union, or the separation of Pakistan and Bangladesh, or the split of Singapore from Malaysia, or even the dissolution of the Roman Empire. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Just some short input on this from my side:
Re 2: I strongly oppose the view that national sovereignty and globalization are mutually exclusive. However I'd rather speak of local sovereignty than of national sovereignty with the nation being just one scope. Respecting national identity and preserving local sovereignty at the current level of current nations is imo crucial to preserving peace and stability. Current political leaders don't do the former from what I can see and do not listen to their peoples. This is one of several reasons why I think that our current socioeconomic order and democracy are failing. And this, in turn, is a reason for why I think that it's so important that we, right now, make sure Wikipedia persists and is sufficiently resilient. For instance I think the Brexit was a very bad thing - however it could have been prevented if people saw their political leaders acting on behalf of them. I'm greatly in favor of globalization and self-identify as World citizen and still I oppose globalization in many ways that it's occurring now and also (at a level that's less important to me) identify as German and would like to have local spheres of decision-making scope. I think the view that we can simply abolish nations is naive (and I once had this view). Also, and most importantly, I think that there's not one nationalism and one globalism. Please have an open mind to these things. For instance a world citizen and probably Lennon aren't in favor of power simply shifting from politics to multinational corporations similar to pestilence over cholera. I don't have much trust in our current structures and personally think they'll fail rather soon − e.g. Trump is already deconstructing the US empire and the international order − I just hope we'll get out of this without a major war or chaos and potentially with improved structures at the other end (for the latter I think that Wikipedia is crucial).
And lastly concerning the reliable sources we use: we need to incorporate all major view-points, not just the ones we agree with. A growing divide makes it our job to neutrally and appropriately inform about all aspects and sides of the divide.
--Fixuture (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixuture, regarding your last 2 sentences directly above, I agree 100%. I also feel some Déjà vu back to the 60s, albeit from the opposite ends of the political spectrum, which feels exactly the same as what Dylan expressed in Ballad of a Thin Man "Something is happening here/ But you don't know what it is/ Do you, Mr. Jones?". Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Globalization only seems to be opposed to nationalism if you're in the developed world. The inflections showing so in that curve are due to taxation of those rich countries' working and middle classes exacerbating instead of compensating for self-interested, rational outsourcing which helps developing countries as much as it helps the first world's rich. Complaining about globalization instead of how developed countries tax their poor and middle class shows a lack of understanding of the facts. Who will join the call for solutions which support first world consumers instead of shouldering them with tariffs and limiting the freedoms to live, work, and employ people where one pleases? 174.16.120.139 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@174.16.120.139:
>Complaining about globalization instead of how developed countries tax their poor and middle class shows a lack of understanding of the facts.
No - that's just your point of view.
Taxation, here, would just be attempts of artificially fixing underlying problems.
>Who will join the call for solutions which support first world consumers instead of shouldering them with tariffs and limiting the freedoms to live, work, and employ people where one pleases?
I'm not sure what solutions you are talking about. And for tariffs please have in mind that those don't just shoulder first world consumers but also stimulate local production which is important for sovereignty, control and autonomy as well as for the environment and potentially work conditions among other things. Also it's not (just at least) the "freedoms to live, work, and employ people where one pleases" but also market pressures which aren't freedoms but are better described as necessities.
Globalization is great but outsourcing work to wherever wages are lowest, work conditions seriously violating human rights and human health, on the long-term sustaining poor economies of less developed countries by depriving them of their intellectual basis and polluting the environment by unnecessary, excessive transportation around the globe among other things are not.
--Fixuture (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
My "point of view" happens to be an established mathematical and historical fact. Wealth is trickling down to foreign countries because rich people, including Donald Trump, will use foreign labor or suppliers to get the best deal. If they don't, consumers bear the brunt of increased prices.
We have an article about what happens when countries try what you and Nocturnalnow are advocating: Import substitution industrialization, which in its "Results" section says, "import substitution was 'both unsustainable over time and produced high economic and social costs.,'" because, "lack of competition [and] reduced innovation and efficiency ... restrained the quality of [locally] produced goods, while protectionist policies kept prices high .... power concentrated in the hands of a few decreased the incentive for entrepreneurial development .... exacerbated inequality .... reduced the incentives for business risk, resulting in decreased efficiency .... large deficits and debts resulting from import substitution policies are largely credited for the resulting Latin American crisis of the 1980s."
Real solutions would involve shifting the tax burden from the working and middle class in developed countries to their rich, including negative taxes if that is what it takes to make up the difference in what their rich are gaining from what their working and middle class are losing.
Your complaints about human rights and health do not comport with the facts. 174.16.120.139 (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@174.16.120.139:
>My "point of view" happens to be an established mathematical and historical fact.
No it's not; it's your (and some others') point of view.
>Wealth is trickling down to foreign countries because rich people, including Donald Trump, will use foreign labor or suppliers to get the best deal
Well that might be true within the current structures. But to what extend, to whom and in what ways? And why should the current ways of wealth trickling down to less developed countries be even remotely optimal?
>If they don't, consumers bear the brunt of increased prices.
That's for sure (at least at the beginning and for most relevant products). I wasn't saying otherwise and it's why I explicitly said "those don't just shoulder first world consumers"
>We have an article about what happens when countries try what you and Nocturnalnow are advocating
I never said that I'm advocating this and I don't think Nocturnalnow did so. For me: I just oppose the imo biased argumentation against tariffs that you made and think that there might be something good to it in certain ways / types / products / areas or in some of its end-results.
>Import substitution industrialization [...]
Well, those are good points. As said I don't advocate tariffs per se, never said otherwise and only made counterarguments to what I think was a one-sided assessment of this.
Yes, stimulating local production and disadvantaging foreign products can be deeply problematic within current structures in which e.g. collaboration isn't happening and knowledge isn't shared between countries, organizations and individuals the way it could.
>Real solutions would involve shifting the tax burden from the working and middle class in developed countries to their rich, including negative taxes if that is what it takes to make up the difference in what their rich are gaining from what their working and middle class are losing.
Please see Wealth tax#Disadvantages. Some issues would be for instance wealthy simply leaving the country / moving their basis elsewhere. Plus it will never happen to a sufficient extend due to the influence of the wealthy. It's not a real solution but an infeasible suggestion of an artificial fix.
>Your complaints about human rights and health do not comport with the facts.
This statistic is not related to my point and does not support your point. Please take a look at the facts, data and research on working conditions in e.g. India and China.
And if you're wondering why the statistic is as it is: it's because of technology and science.
--Fixuture (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
But it is true that as countries become more developed and wealthier, their populations begin to demand improvements in their quality of life that comport with those found in the United States and other Western developed nations — worker rights protections, pollution controls and environmental regulations, improved safety standards, etc. Working conditions and pollution standards in India and China are surely not to that level *now* but they are surely improved over where they were 50 years ago, or even 10 years ago; even the Communist regime in the PRC has had to respond to public pressure from within and without and make strides toward cleaner, more sustainable economic development. The internationalist viewpoint is that the only sustainable way of lifting all boats is to raise those standards worldwide. On the other hand, it is precisely in the ethnonationalist movements that we see politicians ignoring and rejecting improvements in worker rights and environmental standards in the name of "economic competitiveness" — thus Trump's attempted dismantling of the EPA, nonsensical rhetoric about reopening coal mines, and ignoring the scientific proof of climate change in favor of dumping more and more carbon into the global ecosystem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
>as countries become more developed and wealthier, their populations begin to demand improvements in their quality of life [...]
Indeed, but I don't see how that would be a point for the current state of things or the economic globalization as we know it. This is happening despite of it and often in direct conflict with it. For instance if one country raises its worker protections and rights their products and services become more expensive causing corporations to retrieve their goods and services from countries with lower protections and rights with that being a major deterrent of such improvements. In addition and in support of that governments and companies can crush, suppress and prevent such demands to be made or gain traction.
>The internationalist viewpoint is that the only sustainable way of lifting all boats is to raise those standards worldwide.
Well it's a philosophy or narrative that doesn't have any real and effective ways of making that happen and is actually structurally in conflict with that goal.
>On the other hand, it is precisely in the ethnonationalist movements that we see politicians ignoring and rejecting improvements in worker rights and environmental standards in the name of "economic competitiveness"
Yes, the ethnonationalist philosophy is even worse. From my point of view while what you're calling the "internationalist" worldview or narrative only inherently leads to pressures of structural violence, massive inequality, environmental pollution and potentially chaos and unrest the ethnonationalist philosophy in any of its popular variants can lead to said plus easily war.
--Fixuture (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Real incomes change for top 1%, and each 20% 1979-2011.
Average tax rate percentages for the highest-income U.S. taxpayers, 1945-2009.
The U.S. federal effective corporate income tax rate is lower than the highest nominal rate.
Total tax revenue as share of GDP for OECD countries in 2009. The tax burden in the U.S. (black) is relatively small in comparison to other industrialised countries.
When statements recount data from observations, they are facts, not merely points of view. Again, this graph shows exactly how wealth is trickling down to developing countries from the first world. It's not optimal at all, it's merely satisfying the law of supply and demand where the greatest supply of labor is available in developing countries who are therefore able to undercut first world workers who demand more money for their work. A wealth tax is a property tax, but we're talking about income effects, and the right way to address the issue is by adjusting income taxes, not imposing a wealth tax. Finally, if you think conditions in China and India are bad, I assure you they are worse in e.g. Bangladesh and Sub-Saharan Africa, where they outsource, but they are uniformly improving everywhere. 174.16.120.139 (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Aside[edit]

Globalisation basically means putting more power into the hands of transnational bodies, the vast majority of which are corporations. The idea that globalisation is a conspiracy of the political left, as Bannon seems to think, is perverse. To be an internationalist is not the same thing as supporting globalisation. To be an internationalist is to view oneself as a citizen fo the world, and one's country as a partner in the global community of nations. My understanding of old is that internationalism is a leftist or liberal position, based on equity and participation for people, and globalisation is a right or libertarian position based on the obvious extention of the idea of corporate personhood to the point of corporate nationhood. I may have bene wrong about this for my entire adult life. Or Bannon may be a deranged wingnut. Or indeed both. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

^Agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
"On business taxes, it's really about making U.S. companies competitive. We need to create a level playing field for U.S. companies to be able to compete in the world. And they just haven't had that opportunity." --U.S. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin It's a clear race to the bottom. The politicians don't really believe corporations will hire more domestic workers; in fact they would be vulnerable to shareholder lawsuits if they attempt to do so in any substantial way. The politicians are correct to expect, however, that they will be rewarded with more newly-unlimited corporate donations. The real international problem is that when a country as large and with as much output as the U.S. needlessly cuts corporate taxes, other countries are forced to follow suit or suffer a recession. The politicians know this, and are counting on it to maximize their corporate contribution reward. Literally everyone else loses. 174.16.120.139 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You know what, I am absolutely and utterly sick to death of this horseshit. Thank god, I found something that I can comment back to it on like Wikipedia. I understand all the theoretic garble and labels like left and right which are being slapped about everywhere these days, not excluding this conversation. And I do not like to ever stifle objective debate however, you guys are talking about real people here… not graphs, not numbers, not your own life sucking and you not being as rich as you’d like, not moaning about how the world doesn’t seem to be right in your own vision, how YOU are a globalist, how you are an internationalist….  All this horse shit is meaningless when you do absolutely nothing but sit there and talk about it.

As a child, I was abused, I did not have a choice in the matter, thus I went into care. It felts like society had left me, no one like you people had been around for me then. But you know what that experience told me something about the REAL world not just how to say big words but it taught me how to mean them. In later life, I fought tooth and nail to get into university and guess what, I got there. I had to not be so pessimistic and discerning about problems of the world and take my finger from my ass and do something, act on my beliefs. Eventually I graduated with a Bachelor of Laws (Hons) And a BSc … now I am a Lawyer who conducts and helps conduct research…. And guess what… I am still bloody young.

Like I said, I don’t want to stifle debate but for god’s sake stop talking about people like me as if we are facts and figures behind a charade of academic vocabulary and speak of people like they are people. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 22:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

How? I feel the same frustration but I don't know how to talk about what's happening in the world other than in abstract, inhuman terms. I'd love to learn what to do to make these concepts more accessible. 174.16.120.139 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@174.16.120.139: Which concepts more accessible? Its not so much an issue of accessibility as it is promoting the idea of being genuinely decent to one another and understanding that education alone does not give one the key to the universe. There is an amount of personal intimate experience with real world problems required in order to deduct how to resolve them. Many people that I have seen are lost in their own never ending story of personal vanity which dampens their ability to be objective about issues in society because their main concerns are issues with themselves. When you have experienced certain things in life like I have you come to a realisation that pleasures are fickle things which can very easily be taken away. When you have to genuinely fight to overcome adversity in life rather than get lost in endless self-indulgence it becomes apparent that the need to collaborate and be good to one another is all the more vital for survival. I have depended on the kindness and humanity of other people and thus I understand the need for those things to exist in society. But you also come to the realisation that mere talk is cheap and action is absolutely essential in order to produce a quantifiable result. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions)

Even highly educated people are oblivious to many of these issues. Every corporation on the planet has a vested interest in making people sure that lowering taxes on corporations is a good idea. Executives' bonuses are calculated based on how successful they ultimately become in pushing that agenda. The amount of money involved dwarfs that of tobacco or even fossil fuels, and we all know how much time, effort, and astroturf are pushed on those topics. So some of the most educated people on the planet are frequently on TV, in newspaper columns, and interviewed on respectable web sources explaining concepts which for all intents and purposes are deliberately false propaganda. How do people obtain personal intimate real world experience to produce quantifiable results against those campaigns? 174.16.120.139 (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • One thing that is obvious is that ὦiki-Coffee is definitely not a phony, and that is partially the answer to 174.16.120.139's question "How do people obtain personal intimate real world experience to produce quantifiable results against those (propaganda) campaigns." In addition to the awful sources of experience that Wiki-Coffee endured, defining life experiences will also come to anyone who never, ever says or does anything phony, and who also engages with every person you meet as if he or she is a friend, from the McDonald's employee to the big shots....and then, with any extra time, get political...it does not matter on which side of the spectrum...just get political. And 1 person, any person, can have the effect of an earthquake for the power of good in any society, with the help of God; and God, as well as good souls, are all around to help. We all know this, but few of us take action, because action is work, and action is risky. But at the very least, anyone can choose to never say or do anything phony, even if they were brought up to be a phony and are in the habit of being a phony. This all ties into selection of reliable sources. There are lots of phony sources which are oozing phoniness. And there are a few really objective and reality based sources. So, as more and more of us choose to be real all the time, and phony none of the time, we'll be choosing the reality based sources, and ignoring the phony sources. And that will improve the encyclopedia et al., imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Great use of Wikipedia[edit]

Lovely use of one of our list articles. Any chance of getting some real life barnstars to these Wikipedia readers? ϢereSpielChequers 00:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Possibly it can be listed at Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia or a related page.
Wavelength (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure I can find some genuine Pennsylvania rusted star-shaped anchor plates. Just get me a mailing address. If Jimmy could sign a certificate of appreciation for "Best use of knowledge obtained from a Wikipedia article" so much the better. We might even make it an annual award with self-nominations. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Got the mailing address. If anyone has suggestions on what to send with the barnstars, please let me know. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)