User talk:Vegaswikian/Archives/2015

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Vegaswikian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Happy New Year!

Vegaswikian,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of reorganisation needed for the Category:Infrastructure tree, if "Physical infrastructure" is not what it says. Non-physical things like computing infrastructure are currently included in Category:Infrastructure, for example. To be honest I'm clueless as to when "Buildings and structures" become "Infrastructure" and, generally, the two descriptions seem to be used interchangeably. Sionk (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've replied on my Talk page, to keep the conversation in one place. Sionk (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I would appreciate if you could have another look at the CfD here. The dsicussion specifically addressed the question of putting a complete list of members in this article and the main comment was that it would be unlikely that anybody would want to put such a complete list in this article... I think that a partial list, as already present in the article (founding members, note that they are now listed twice), is enough. Having a complete list really goes against WP:NOTADIRECTORY and against the discussion during the CfD. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I read that discussion several times. What was clear is that the contents of the category should be listed somewhere. As I read the discussion there was specific support for including 56 articles, which is what I did. I don't believe that anyone was endorsing having every member in the list. and I don't know how many there are. As to founding members and current members, they are two different lists. Founding members don't always stay as members and can cease to exist so they can not be a current member but will always be a member. At this point what should or should not be in the article really should be discussed on the talk page. Let the people active there reach a consensus on what is needed. If they decide to trim the list, that is there call. I'll also note that at CfD, if information is going to be lost that could assist navigation, then creating a list is quite common. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• This is basically a complete list. Reading the CfD, there was really no consensus on listing all members of the category in the article: 1/ nom: delete cat, don't listify; 2/ Peterkingiron: delete cat, no opinion on listification given; 3/ article creator: agrees with deleting cat, in favor of listification; 4 and 5/ Postdlf and SFB: listify. Postdlf specifically argues that a complete list is not needed. There's an objective reason to list those members that were founders of the organization. The previous members of the category that were moved to the article are really an idiosyncratic selection (those that happen to have a WP article at this point in time, no other selection criterion I can see). --Randykitty (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there an issue with discussing this on the talk page? As I said, let those with more knowledge decide on how much should be there. The CfD discussion provided no indication of how many member there are so a closer can not make that determination. I still believe that preserving the contents of the category was appropriate with that discussion. A later consensus on the article talk page would be the best place to determine if those discussing the category made a good choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

re User talk:Sardanaphalus#Category:Example.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I think I have at least to move the closing part of the table and the closing center tag to all pages. The current syntax with some tags stating in the page ans finishing inside a transcluded template is really confusing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That makes it easier to change by accident. But if it fixes the problems with the new improvements, I guess you are free to do it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a note on some CFDs listed for deletion—these categories were deleted with the bot noting the discussions at 2014 January 13 rather than 2015. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems to have ... worked? .... OK, so how did you do that? On the WP:CFDW page, you entered 2014 January 13, but Cydebot annotated the deletions with the correct date of 2015 January 13. ... The bot is smarter than I think? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your name is mentioned at the head of a decision to remove the category "drug user". If you are the wrong person to "hold to task" about this, please direct me to the right one. I know zilch about the politics of this place. I must add that I had hoped that there was no politics involved in the dissemination of information in this place. I say "hold to task" because there is a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_user with a section on notable drug users, which includes people I had put into that category - subsequently deleted. It seems to me totally ad hoc to disallow the category I created, and yet allow the page I am just referring you to now. Do not for a minute think that I am suggesting that page be removed. Rather, I would hope that you would hold people who insist on deletion of material to a rational standard of argument, so that Wikipedia does not become a hotch-potch of personal likes at the cost of personal dislikes. HHofmeister (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you !voted in a similar discussion that recently closed, I thought you should be made aware that a similar move proposal is occurring at Talk:Woodstock#Requested_move_28_December_2014, in case you want to weigh in.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sadasiva Temple, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://templeofhoysala.blogspot.com/2013/02/sadasiva-templenuggehalli.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see the callous attitude with which is cut and paste a paragraph from this article to create another article without so much as leave a note for discussion on the talk page prior to your edit. First of all please try to understand that:

• Occasionally, it makes more sense to have two or more closely associated buildings (due to reasons such as location, architectural style, dynasty) put into one article to provide a more wholesome article to the reader.
• In ancient countries like India, often temples were added upon by succeeding dynasties or succeeding rulers of the same dynasty and for historical reasons, they have to be put together in one article in the form of a temple complex. Such temple complexes are common in India.
• Even if an article is split into multiple articles, you should provide a complete article, not just split it, cut and paste something into a new article and move on. You did not bother to copy paste the reference sources into the new article, and did not even try to provide the 'lead' info regarding that Sadashiva temple. Also the name of the original article contained the names of both temples even after you split it into two.

I hope you will refrain from such edits in the future.Tamilyomen (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Are windmills industrrial buildings? The vast majority (i.e. corn mills and drainage mills) would surely be agricultural buildings, would they not? Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits but Messines would be an explosion in 1917Keith-264 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks babe.Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have recently added the Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1172 to the article Old Bridge, Hasankeyf. I certainly understand the desire to assign a definite completion date for this structure. However, the date really is pretty uncertain, and saying that the bridge was "completed in 1172" is misleading. All we know is that is was built during the reign of the Artukid ruler Fakhr ad-Din Qara Arslan, and probably after the Malabadi Bridge. Various dates are given for Qara Arslan's accession and death as you can see at Old Bridge, Hasankeyf#Date. I have spent several months trawling through obscure articles to try to nail this down more precisely, and at this point I'm pretty sure we won't be able to get more precision any time soon. Therefore, I would rather that the bridge is listed in Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 12th century. If you feel there's a reason to justify a more specific date, please let me know. Otherwise, I will move this back to the more general category. Thanks, Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

		The Category Barnstar
		Thanks for all your work with categories on Wikipedia! Here's some encouragement to brighten your day :) Keep up the great work! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (44th to be exact!), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Question for you. Your recent change to FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Task Force. Can you explain what that does? I've seen that elsewhere and never understood the point of it. What is the magic I am missing? --Zackmann08 (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A little while back, you closed a similar discussion to the above for Canadian TV stations. There's a bit of a CfD backlog at the moment, so I thought I'd reach out and ask if you'd be willing to have a look and see if there's a logical conclusion for this discussion too. I've been somewhat anticipating a similar result, so I've been doing some prep work to effect the clean up, just in case. Mlaffs (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a little nervous about getting my hands dirty on the Mexican ones, as I don't know the sourcing like I do in Canada/the U.S. However, I have 90-95% of the U.S. lists sitting ready in my user space, and could start moving them across and depopulating the categories within a couple of hours from now. The list-making has actually been a good exercise, because the category sets had some incorrect entries and were missing some valid entries. Mlaffs (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Vegaswikian. You've twice reverted my edits removing redlinks from the navbox Template:Pinnacle Entertainment. While I'm sure these are casinos owned by the Pinnacle folks, they aren't notable enough for an article and sending readers to an empty article kinda defeats the purpose of a navigation template. Once those articles are written, then they can be added and someone visiting one of the any of the Pinnacle articles would then see other Pinnacle properties they can read about in that navbox. Please stop adding redlinks back here. If these properties are notable, I'm sure an article will be along shortly and the link to those new articles can be added here (as well as this template to that article). Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The article Pirates of the Caribbean (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Delete per WP:2DAB because it is a disambiguation page that consists of only one primary topic and one second item. It has an extensive "See also" section but again, that is entirely addressed by the primary topic.

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. Codename Lisa (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wanted to make sure you saw THIS. Please comment. :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pirates of the Caribbean (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirates of the Caribbean (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, old timer. Look, this edit wasn't good because it changes something that is being actively discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirates of the Caribbean (disambiguation). Doing it confuses participants. (I know; it is a judgment call.) The dab page have been like that since October 2011. What's another seven days? And, I know, the other editor didn't exactly see things rationally and I did point it out in the AfD. Fleet Command (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind holding off on taking action on the rename? I plan to take advantage of your "this does not preclude" statement, nominating it for moving to "railroad crossings" immediately. Should my proposal be successful, it will be unhelpful to have two renames in a short period of time, while should it be unsuccessful, nobody will suffer by having these articles at the old name for a short while. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem; I forgot that this would be handled by a bot. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please take care with year-specific categories. You've been applying them to articles with "circa" or "by" dates which are not so specific. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You added a more specific cat to Unionskirche, Idstein, - let me understand: that building was still the same building in the 17th century, just remodeled, and it had been Protestant since the 16th century, - reads a bit confusing to me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you only see jokes by appointment? SmokeyTheCat 12:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

enjoy!! Llshipleyll (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The discussion you closed here had only one person participate after the nomination -- and that person gave zero rationale, which should result in the corresponding failure to give the !vote weight.

Plus, as can be seen in the discussion here, the nom's assertions (for example "The Maccabiah Games is not a large scale enough games" and "This is the case of a structure for a minor competition getting far ahead of itself" do not hold up upon investigation.

In addition, as User:MacRusgail indicated here, he would have liked to have known of this discussion, as would I -- this is the problem when cat changes are not listed on the wikiproject notice pages. He and I, who both have worked on articles relating to competitors in this competition, would like to participate in the discussion.

How would you suggest this be addressed, so proper discussion on proper facts can be had, and !votes based on rationales determine whether to accept the nomination or not? Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop emptying the architecture categories out of process; you've been around here long enough that you know that it's prohibited, and you also know that these categories were kept at CFD. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

First, thanks for stepping in and cleaning up the CfD backlog. I will disagree with your assessment of the discussion. Of course I !voted in that CfD, so I'm a bit biased, but I think the best assessment would have been no consensus. The objections are not based on how experts alone categorize plants. These categories are also used in lay publications -- books and articles meant for public consumption discuss and describe plants by their countries or other political boundaries. This system works well for Wikipedia, too. You also cited precedent -- sure, fauna categories have been consolidated for the European fauna categories, but this was the first flora one. The two are fundamentally different, because we have the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions and a long history of its use in Wikipedia (the Australian categories have been in use since 2006). I'd appreciate it if you could re-think the decision or at least take another look. Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have no doubt you considered the discussion carefully, I just disagree with the outcome, especially when about even numbers of editors were on opposite sides (NB: I realize !vote counts don't mean much in XfD discussions). You should know that previous discussions going back to 2007 treated flora and fauna differently. Discussions on fauna resulted in upmerging while flora categories were left as they were. The rationale, if I recall correctly, was that there were more plants with restricted or narrow distributions. I didn't entirely agree, but the fact is that they're treated differently and have been for some time.

I acknowledge that lists articles do serve a good purpose, but they're different from flora categories. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. I can browse the List of flora of Ohio, but I use Category:Flora of Ohio for navigation among the articles we have on Ohio flora. Such a category hierarchy does serve the readers, contrary to your assertion. And since you brought it up, I fail to see how this argument doesn't also extend to landforms by country or country subdivision, such as List of rivers of Ohio and Category:Rivers of Ohio.

You said, "Basically if it is alive we categorize by continent..." -- No, that's not how it has been done until very recently when a small group of editors, maybe four or so, started bring fauna categories to CfD around a year and a half ago. And that's only for Europe. The vast majority of living organisms are categorized by country, not continent. Further, the arguments these editors make against country categories (e.g. their interpretation of WP:DEFINING -- criteria invented after the implementation of flora categories) can also apply to many global taxa, or those found on more than one continent. As I've said before, it's a matter of scale and usefulness; a continent category is useless and will be too large. This is why we diffuse to countries.

I can appreciate your judgement, but I feel quite strongly about this. I haven't been editing much anyway, so perhaps if this decision is then used as precedent for other flora category merges, I'll just drift away. It's been ten years, a good long run. Perhaps it's just time to move on anyway... Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 22:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Heyo! How's it going? I wanted to chat with you about the Category you added for Virginia. It is the only state in the US that has such a category. IMHO it is better to just have all the departments from a state be in the same category. I'm curious to hear your view? Why do you feel it is better to have a further broken down Category? --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Right on! For the record when I nominated it for deletion it was an empty category... But I hear ya! WP:CFD it is! Thanks. --Zackmann08 (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

As a participent in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 2#Category:Churches by continent, you may be interested in knowing that I've just initiated a new CFR discussion to fix the whole tree - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Churches/Church buildings. Feel free to participate there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

why are you deleting some cats, such as X establishments in X country. What is wrong with them? --Egeymi (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that you made a change to {{Annual tornado months}}. You apparently did something which caused the template to transclude improperly, so I reverted your change. Also, please point out where in WP:CAT you refer to and why you are removing categories. I read through WP:TEMPLATECAT and I cannot seem to find what you specifically are referring to, although I could have simply missed it. How else can the templates be categorized? I'm not using that particular line of coding to categorize articles, just other templates using the {{Annual tornado months}} template. It would be wasted space to add the category to every single template individually. Dustin (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi VW, rather than getting into an edit war, will you please come to discuss this issue on the Riviera talk page?Mikalra (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, This has been done:

• Category:20th-century amusement rides to Category:Amusement rides introduced in the 20th century – C2C for children and conform with convention for the building and structures parent. . Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Fancy picking up the C19, C21 siblings, and roller coaster subcategories? – Fayenatic London 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! – Fayenatic London 16:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

See: Talk:Two-lane expressway. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I see you emptying categories such as here The Lamb, Bloomsbury do not preempt CFR, also it is polite to notify category creators when you make nominations. You won't get you way by being sneaky. Tim! (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 21th century BC, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, related to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 10, it seems to me that buildings & structures are works, but the edit cited at the CfD [1] took Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1812 out of Category:1812 works. IMHO, each of those buildings categories ought to be added back into the former grandparent category for works by year. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Christian Science church buildings by century, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Also the 19th and 20th century subcategories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've now requested the same for Category:19th-century Church of Denmark church buildings and Category:20th-century Church of Denmark church buildings along with the subcategories for the Category:18th-century Baptist church buildings Category:21st-century Baptist church buildings. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

more specific category
Thank you, user with show-time, for tirelessly creating and adding more specific categories and series categories, for disambiguations, redirects "with possibilities", page moves and assessments, for expanding your namesake and starting articles such as Pedestrian separation structure, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 944th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, given your edit back in 2008, can you please review the categorization of Category:Novartis. Today, I've found it by accident and it was uncategorized (except for hidden categories). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 06:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The article Cherry Patch Ranch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, limited references, potentially created for promotional purposes.

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. Mountain^cirque 12:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrote a bunch of code to change the citations on the Sully Historic Site article from the current version to the proposed formatting. Cannot implement this without consensus. Would very much appreciate your opinion at the talk page. Abel (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Courtyard by Marriott, Houston. Since you had some involvement with the Courtyard by Marriott, Houston redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Health care companies of the United Kingdom, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Several categories, including at least one which you created, have been nominated for possible merging. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)