User talk:Tony1

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

This is a place to report alleged wrongdoing by admins (as well as being my talkpage)

A forum for airing concerns about admin actions

The community is increasingly aware that wrong actions by admins lead to the loss of valuable editors, particularly women and newbies. It is vital for us to have a forum to discuss serious complaints against admins when they breach Wikipedia policies and guidelines—away from pages dominated by admins, with their inherent conflicts of interest. Here the process centres on airing complaints of alleged wrongdoing. We want independent and balanced opinion, unobstructed by admin group-think.

Why this has become necessary

  • The absence of independent oversight of admin behaviour, which leaves regular editors vulnerable to capricious and unfair actions without any realistic remedy. ArbCom and other forums are manifestly incapable of performing this role. They are dominated by admins, resulting in systemic bias.
  • Admins' resistance to any proposal for change. This resistance both springs from and maintains the position-for-life status that admins enjoy by default. RfAs fail to predict whether applicants would avoid using their power counterproductively.
  • Persistent wagon-circling, in which admins (often automatically, sometimes unconsciously) gang up to protect a fellow admin from an accusation.

Focus, scope, and procedure

  • Reports should be by registered users only.
  • Admins may comment if they must—as long as the community of regular editors would not regard their behaviour here as an abuse of power (either overt or more subtle), or as the usual reflex defence of admins regardless of evidence and argument.
  • Don't report alleged wrongdoing that occurred before 5 April 2018.
  • You don't have to allege that you are a victim, to make a report.
  • More than one admin can be reported at the same time if their alleged actions are connected.
  • Write as concisely as possible, and stay on track.
  • A report must concern a breach of policy or guideline by an admin acting in that role (specify and link to the wording in policies or guidelines); it may also draw attention to wagon-circling, if that has become an issue too.
  • Provide supporting diffs.
  • Near the start of your thread you must show (with diffs) that those you name have been notified.

This is not an attack page

Do not make frivolous or vexatious reports. Be polite, calm, and brief; just the facts. Focus on the alleged wrongdoing, not the admin; but briefly declare any personal history that may be relevant. Insults and other negativity will be removed. Remember: this is a public page.

My limited role

  • I make no undertaking to investigate reports, and I have no power to resolve issues. I can only facilitate discussion. At least you'll stand a better chance here of finding out what regular editors think, without inbuilt conflicts of interest.
  • This is my talkpage. I reserve the right to remove inappropriate, irrelevant, or bad-faith text.
  • Commenters are under the same good-faith obligations as I impose on myself here, and must declare any personal interest.

What if there is no activity here?

If no reports are made, it would signify that we don't have these systemic and cultural problems after all: the ultimate success. If admins don't like the process, I have three suggestions: (i) don't break the rules; (ii) don't automatically protect your friends if they are out of line; and (iii) don't continue to obstruct reasonable proposals to modernise our hopelessly outdated arrangements for admins, which have hardly changed in 15 years. Note the bumbling failures at reform year by year on en.WP, among them: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2012, 2013, 2013 ... I'm tired of counting. Contrast this with the German Wikipedia's reforms in 2009, credited with improving admin accountability and relations with the community: 25 usernames on a petition within a month, or 50 within six months, and another RfA is necessary—recognising both acute crises and slow-burning problems.

Relevant policies that supposedly bind admins

New thread[edit]

I know you're extremely unhappy with me and it will probably never change, but I just wanted to message you and welcome you back. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey you're back! Delighted to see you editing again. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 06:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Great to see you back, Tony. SarahSV (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Missed you, Tony. Welcome back. Dicklyon (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Missed him? I didn't even know you were shooting at him! EEng 22:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if it helps, but I think Dicklyon meant "missed" as in "missed your presence", not "missed you as target practice". Dr. K. 23:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I shouldn't take potshots like that, because they can misfire. In the future I'll keep my powder dry. But I'm glad Tony's bit the bullet and come back. EEng 23:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think your joke misfired. I was thinking of using <humour> tags during my reply, but I thought [hopefully] it was obvious I was joking. Dr. K. 00:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Ha! Faked you out! EEng 01:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Lol. Touché. :) Dr. K. 02:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I would not miss EEng. Dicklyon (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Wait a second, Dicklyon. Did you mean I would not miss EEng or I would not miss, EEng? You will appreciate my wanting that cleared up. You of all people need not be told how much can hang on a comma. EEng 01:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
With so much hanging in the balance, this is no joking matter but, alas, it appears it is. Dr. K. 02:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back, Tony. Bishonen | talk 10:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC).

Hail, Hail, the Gang's All Here!! Atsme📞📧 15:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I just said this at my own talk page, but welcome back! (I missed EEng once, and I'm determined never to do it again. Been practicing every day.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:SP hits after vs during publication week (3 and 10 May 2010).jpg[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The file File:SP hits after vs during publication week (3 and 10 May 2010).jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Old orphaned esoteric file.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob13Talk 17:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, delete it. Thx. Tony (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Julia Stephen[edit]

I believe I counted 18 delinks on Julia Stephen. Apart from the fact the page just underwent GA review, there is definitely a grey area in terms of what you refer to as "common terms". The test is what enhances the article by providing further information. The problem with the word "common" is that is it is subjective, and given the millions of potential viewers, there is likely to be a very wide range of understanding of words and terms used in a page. --Michael Goodyear   13:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Michael—I'm surprised you've been editing for nearly 12 years without engaging with the significant community endorsement of a more rationed approach to internal linking, most notably in the results of a massive RFC in 2009. There are compelling reasons that en.WP has adopted a more disciplined approach—among them that it's no service to readers for the linking system to be diluted by links to such items as "photographer" (twice), "biographer" (twice), "advocacy" (twice), "civil servant", "university", "heart failure", "painter", "agnostic" (three times), and "honeymoon". Readers are supposed to be able to read English, and it is a pillar of en.WP that the site should not be a dictionary. The community endorsed the notion that editors should use their skills to restrict items to those that are most likely to be useful, rather than risking that readers will ignore a sea of blue—and one that looks pretty messy, too. Nothing stops a reader from typing an item into the search box.

It's disappointing that a GA review didn't pick up the overlinking; there are further items I personally don't think should be linked. But perhaps I was wrong to remove the link to "model (art)", since it's a specialised form of modelling that is very relevant to the subject. Regrettably, it will bunch with other links, which the guideline discourages; but I'll do it now.

I note the good work that you do, recently endorsed by at least one person on your talkpage. Well-deserved praise. Tony (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Alas, I fear you are too generous in your estimate of the literacy of the millions of WP users and their willingness to go elsewhere and do searches on words they don't understand or wish to know more about. With regards to the ability to "read English", in my experience, many readers have native languages other than English where WP in their own language falls short. "sea of blue" is an expression that gets thrown around a lot, but I think you will agree is perhaps a trifle hyperbolic. On my browser the blue does not stand out much from the black. But its a problem WP could solve my simply using a "mouse-over" rather than a colour change. What is a "common term" leaves some room for debate, and I might venture "agnostic" would not fit that in many people's minds. With reference to the WP community, whatever the theory, in practice I find other editors and reviewers just as likely to think I underlink as much as overlink! --Michael Goodyear   15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Michael, I agree about the "mouseover". I've suggested it a few times over the years, but no one is technically interested in putting a proposal. It would have to be done by the WMF. Tony (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I recall brainstorming this sometime between 3 to 6 years ago -- two kinds of links, one essentially like we have now in blue, things that are especially relevant -- and quietly links behind much, much more of the text, which reveal themselves if you hover, links to everyday stuff you might nonetheless want to look up for some reason (especially if you're a young person), definitions of terms, stuff like that. On many browsers you can highlight random text and right-click to get "look up in google" -- if we could make it so you could "look up in Wikipedia" any random text you want, I think that would be much like what we're looking for along these lines. EEng 18:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Sad to see that the GA process also let through a dangling participle! Now corrected. PamD 14:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually a very common situation. Case in point: Today's Featured Article (William T. Stearn) happens to be one of mine. This point was never raised at GA review, but it was suggested it move on to FA. There, it was initially rejected and savagely attacked because of dangling participles. In my experiences reviewers vary enormously in their interest and emphasis on such grammatical issues. --Michael Goodyear   12:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Having a dangling participle, the GA process shouldn't have let that article through. EEng 18:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

So you're back ...[edit]

... and I have a copyediting question, so I've naturally come to you. ;-) See Talk:Murder of Yvonne Fletcher#Lead sentence. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing[edit]


There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018[edit]


Hi, thanks for your work. The names of job titles are not normally capitalised on en.WP. This includes "dean", "rector", "vicar", at the like. Thanks. Tony (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tony I understand that in a title such as David Smith (bishop) it would have a small b. However if you say David Smith was appointed Bishop of Maidstone in 1987 then surely that requires a capital?

All the best, Bashereyre (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi its me again Tony. Looking at the article David Smith I can see what you are getting at. I'm guessing you would put vicar and Rural Dean. At my grammar school, some 40 years ago, had I put the vicar of Bray or the mayor of London I would have been put in detention. Old habits die hard!
Yeah, it's a fine line, I concede. Tony (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────<clears throat>

An indolent vicar of Bray
His roses allowed to decay
His wife (more alert)
Bought a powerful squirt
And said to her spouse, "Let us spray."

EEng 04:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Script problems[edit]

This edit at Warsaw did a lot of useful things, but it also changed three numbers in a bad way. The first changed "09.7" to "$29.7" and the other two are shortly after that in the diff. A script that makes subtle changes that break numbers should not be used. Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll alert User:Ohconfucius straight away. We rely on people like you to make these comments. I'll go back and check the article. Tony (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Your removal of sourced information hasn't gone unnoticed. Please discuss it first and check the official list of Alpha global cities where Warsaw has been upgraded from Alpha- to Alpha in 2016. Do not make personal edits because of something you believe it to be. Base it on facts. That's not Wikipedia policy. Oliszydlowski, 11:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I hope you notice. The purpose of a WP article on a city is not as an advertising feature in a newspaper. I don't mind discussing this "alpha" rank thing, but my feeling was that it goes too far in what was appearing to be a perpetual brag/puffing-up in the lead. On the sister/partner cities, this has long been considered to be too trivial for WP's summary articles; and not all of the claims were sourced. Again, I don't mind discussing it. Tony (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 24 May 2018[edit]

Re: note[edit]

Thanks for your good faith note. Have a pleasant weekend. Andrevan@ 02:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Double !vote[edit]

Hi, I think you have twice counted yourself among the supporters at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Overlaps_with_another_RFC. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. I'll try to fix this. Bit confusing. Tony (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Take the positive view: you !voted consistently :) - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I know you have had a lot to do with things relating to style over the years. I think it was Eric Corbett who explained to me years ago that linking on first use really does mean what it says. However, I do sometimes see people who say that duplicate linking/overlinking is desirable in a situation where the term appears in the lead. That is, you link in the lead and also on the first occurrence in the body. An example of this was at the recent GAN for the Crawford family. Do you have an opinion? - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes: avoid where possible. I've never been convinced of arguments for duplicate linking. Perhaps in the infobox and elsewhere once, but not in the main text. If they miss such a crushingly valuable link, they can type the target into the search box in five seconds. Tony (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
OK. Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cuza Hotta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Have taken your suggestions on board[edit]

Thanks Tony. I don't know if you are English but I am; and a teacher. A raft of reforms brought in by Michael Gove are now fully embedded. Rightly or wrongly, these tend towards the very formal. I'm 57 and got an A* at English A-level, and my (very good) English teacher told me never to bother with a semi-colon. Now you cannot get a top grade without being able to use one. Gove's rationale for these changes was that they would put the next generation of English (country not subject) graduates on level par with other top countries. My own feeling is that it will penalise them further, because as you so rightly say the world as a whole has decided to use my native tongue but simplify some of its more arcane conventions. I have decided to use was a curate at, served curacies at, was the incumbent of, served incumbencies at. However, the Archdeacon of Somewhere is a three word title in the way that "plumber of Somewhere" might not be. Incidentally, the modern convention is to say Woodstock Road, Madeline Close, Glebe Drive etc but in centuries past the second word was written starting with a lower case ie Fleet street, Rotten row, Penny lane!Bashereyre (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not English, but a native speaker. Dear me, if I could get scientists and engineers to use semicolons I'd be in clover. Let alone hyphens! OK, the position–place can be left upcased. I'm only drawn to that family of articles because the years are linked, so they appear on my lists. And I beat you in age! Tony (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

College football articles[edit]

Please explain next time why you move a page. Your edit was reverted at California Golden Bears football team due to two reasons: it was an unexplained move, and adding "team" to the end of the article name is not our standard naming convention. We only use "team" for season articles (ex. 2018 California Golden Bears football team). Thanks, Corky 13:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan:, I didn't "explain" because it looked, and now looks again, like a weird mistake. Does the team own a football? Is it a unique style of football, with its own rules, that we've never heard of? Surely it's the "California Golden Bears", then. Tony (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Just because it "looks weird" doesn't mean it's not right. You should have done a little more searching on Wikipedia before moving it. In the United States, it is very common to refer to a school's team this way by the media. If you would like to learn more or suggest a change, you can ask some of the more experienced and (more knowledgeable than I) at WT:WikiProject College football. Corky 17:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

TPS here...The correct venue to suggest a change would be WP:AT. Primergrey (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan:—rather than reacting aggressively and rudely, you might simply have explained that "California Golden Bears" concerns more than football, but other sports, such as basketball. It would be more helpful to render the "football" in parentheses as explanatory. But I don't want to deal with your nastiness further, except to say that it's still a weird title in this context, for readers who don't know. And no thanks for fixing up a whole of glitches in the article ... Pigs. Tony (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Railroaded and now TB[edit]

  • content removed by Atsme* Atsme📞📧 12:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
(tpw) Atsme Please self-revert; this is canvassing and does not look good. Alex Shih (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Alex, this is the place to complain about bad behaviour by admins: I've promoted it as such. But Bishonen is an old wiki-friend of mine, so already I'm conflicted. I have to ensure that anything I say is considered and not conflicted. And I'm under huge work pressure at the moment. I might look properly at your link some time (not now), and comment here. I noticed names of admins I've seen wagon-circling, a behaviour that erodes the social texture on this site. I don't like it. Tony (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018[edit]

WMF Board: EU copyright folly "a threat to essential human freedoms"[edit]

It's serious, folks.

Tony (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I left a few comments on my user page. The problem I have is that for reasons I needn't explain, British MEPs are winding down on events expecting to be out of a job in about nine months, and are ineffectual. That's probably why the report doesn't mention anything about the UK's involvement because everyone is talking about Brexit instead. I'm not here for political arguing (I do that enough elsewhere) so I'll duck out here wondering just what can I do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a problem. No effective voice for British WPians. After your Tory orangutan said "Fuck business", I don't know what to say. What a mess. Tony (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Need your help sir[edit]

Hello, Sir I want your help in the creation of a new page for a construction company.Sir I read all the instructions and followed same but the created page was deleted so sir can u pls help me in the creation of the page.Recwiki (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Recwiki (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Script-assisted template break[edit]

Ye gods! Someone has tampered with this INFOBOX!

Heads up that this script-assisted edit took a pair of curly braces off of the infobox, breaking it. Any idea what happened there? Maybe something to do with the braces being on the same line as the "country" field? --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: thanks so much for pointing this out. I'll fix it now. Pinging the script-master, @Ohconfucius: Tony (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Removing all URLs[edit]

Hi! I reverted/undid your edit here, for obvious reasons. Feel free to reapply the edit you were trying to do. (tJosve05a (c) 08:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the script stalled during execution but was nevertheless saved. The tell-tale sign is that the urls were replaced by the substitution/protection mechanism and didn't get restored. It isn't a common occurrence but it does happen occasionally. -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Belated thanks[edit]

I've always wanted to come back here and thank you for the copyedit suggestions on my FA nominations years ago. My job now involves heavy revision of workpapers, memos, and other write-ups, and each time I axe "utilize" and "additionally", I remember your sage advice. Thank you. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 21:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You're most welcome! Tony (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day[edit]

Edit day.svg Happy First Edit Day, Tony1, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Bob Vila infobox[edit]

Could you explain this unexplained edit, which removed cited content? DMacks (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Are those supposed family members notable in their own right? The "wife" is not referenced. The number of "children", indeed the spouse, is notorious for instability throughout a life. Why are these claims necessary at the top of the article? Tony (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Wife is supported by the (same ref that cites the number children). They are not notable in their own right. I don't support including the children's names (they are grown and at least one was mentioned in an independent news report, but not WP:BIO notable). But just the number of them? I suspect that a ref from 2 years ago for the number of children a then-70-year-old married to a probably-60-something wife for 40something years had won't change (not that WP must be instantly-up-to-date anyway). His wife is not-rarely mentioned by name with him in news reports. She's president of a philanthropic fund[1] that has multiple mentions on WP but no article at this time and she has been featured in Barron's[2]), so either she is notable or close enough for this context. DMacks (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Well ... if you really think they're important enough for the infobox, rather than just a mention in the main text, where it also doesn't matter quite so much if the details change. On a related issue, I find infoboxes for politicians that trumpet non-notable family names and numbers, often not reffed. My suspicion is that they're inserted by their staffers to push their "family-friendly" image, a political motivation I don't have much respect for. Tony (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
You know he's a home-improvement TV show host, not a politician, right? But I created Diana Barrett for you. DMacks (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
What can I say now? Love–40. Tony (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! The end result is we don't have uncited content and we gained a new bio article. Win all around. DMacks (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Falk Grieffenhagen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

List of air show accidents and incidents in the 21st century[edit]

Hi there, just wanted to give you a heads-up that your recent edit at List of air show accidents and incidents in the 21st century resulted in some weirdness. Two citations had their ends lopped off, and the word "Germany" was put in parentheses throughout the page. No big deal, I've fixed it, but thought I should let you know in case this indicated some weirdness going on with the script. Cheers! Jessicapierce (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Jessicapierce, thanks so much for fixing. Pinging the script-master, @Ohconfucius:. Here's the diff in question Tony (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Granville Independent and Parramatta Advertiser[edit]

I had precious little to do with this article. I made some obvious fixes to it, but I take no responsibility for the rest of it.--Grahame (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

But you could exercise a collaborative potential by notifying whoever did it. Sigh ... I'll do it, I suppose. Tony (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)