User talk:Alex 21/Archive 3

TableTBA template

Thanks for creating this! Given how much that code is used, this will make it easier. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Glad to help out! I've had to copy-paste the small span so often, so I hope that distributing it throughout series' articles I follow will help other users learn how useful it is. Alex|The|Whovian 14:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

True. The only thing I'd like to suggest is in the documentation, maybe stray away from "episode table"-centric talk. While this will undoubtably be where the template is used the most, it could have uses other places. Just a thought, but otherwise, good job! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

TBBT credits

Regarding this edit: What do you mean "not as credited"? The punctuation, as compared to the press releases? If that's important, then why are the references deleted when an episode airs? The punctuation in the press releases differs from the on-screen text in the episodes too. The new credits had a reference to cbspressexpress. DarkProdigy (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Punctuation is important, and the references are removed before all information is easily verifiable via the episode. Not is the link you've provided, given that a reference should be publicly accessible - I'm getting a "Sorry. This site is not available from your location" message. I recommend taking this to the article's talk page to get the opinion of other editors, if you have an issue with it. Alex|The|Whovian 00:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Issue

I am really at a loss on what to do with this user. He/she is arguing based on unjustified arguments and poor editing. They're being stubborn and very unwilling to listen. What should we do? (Answer here to avoid more disruption from them) Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Unfortunately, I am just at as much of a loss as you are. I've had issues with the editor before (example: Talk:Ascension_(miniseries)#Addition_of_a_demo_column and the discussion below it), and it appears that they have a know-it-all and always-right complex. I feel like there's a need to report the user, but there's not really enough to go on, other than his extreme stubbornness which has caused all of this. Alex|The|Whovian 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Now the user is calling me a vandal. This is what they've written: "As for you you really need to get off the broken record of just stating "read the template" when the real issue is the copyright template should never have been used for a trivial fix. You are currently putting the article into peril with being deleted. As if it is recreated the original title can't be used and the other non-copyright details will be lost. So you are technically being a vandal by trying to force it's name change and/or removal." Would be worth pursuing an ANI report? Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware, I'm following your talk page myself, and just added a reply. I'd suggest an ANI report - the ANI page states "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page". We've attempted that, yet the user continues. Alex|The|Whovian 16:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Screw it. I am going to file an ANI report now. It's gone too far, and the user is being very stubborn and immature at this point. Thank you for help. You will have to contribute to the ANI report so I am not left alone being pounded by their poor references in editing and guidelines. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I will definitely be sure to put my view across in the report. This disruptive user has gone on for long enough. Alex|The|Whovian 16:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I filed an ANI report here. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 17:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've had some run-ins with this guy, and commented on ANI to that effect. The vandal claim, pointy editing, abusive edit summaries, and refusal to work to consensus are all part of his edit warring repertoire. Stick to your guns with this one! --Drmargi (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Thank you so much for the reply on the ANI report. I will stick it with this one. The user has gone too far for me. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 18:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Well, the situation keeps on getting better. Look at Helmboy's recent comment here. I cannot believe he's being this degrading and invincible. I wish there were more ways to bring attention to the ANI report about the user. No admin has intervened as of yet. One admin only replied to Helmboy's questions. Ugh. Do emojis work on Wikipedia? 😤😤😲😲😠😠😠 Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 01:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Turns out, all he got was a warning... I have a feeling that that won't stop him. Alex|The|Whovian 08:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

At least it's a step in the right direction. If the user continues with this behavior, then he can't say he wasn't warned by uninvolved editors or admins. If he continues with the behavior after the admin warning, the next ANI complaint will probably be followed by a block. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 15:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

TV related RfC

As an editor with an interest in television articles, you may be interested in participating in an RfC that has been opened at Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)#RfC: Should years be included in the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Young & Hungry

How was that copyvio? I mean, maybe Young & Moving was too similar. I wrote summaries for the other episodes and you didn't remove them despite the same base, just written in my own words... Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 01:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: How can you summarize something that hasn't aired yet, without it being based on an online description? Alex|The|Whovian 01:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Uhmm... A bunch of TV show articles do this... I'd be happy to give you examples? Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 02:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Please do. Alex|The|Whovian 02:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: List of Jessie episodes (view Season 4), List of Liv and Maddie episodes (view season 2), Jane the Virgin, Jane the Virgin #2, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 16), Chicago P.D. (season 2), Chicago Fire (season 3), The Fosters, The Fosters #2. I don't know if I should continue? It's been done by a lot, some don't but majority on my watchlist do and I have not seen any rules against writing summaries before an episode airs. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 02:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: I'll take a look at these. Though, simply because other articles do it, doesn't mean that it's alright to continue it. As WP:TVPLOT states: Since TV episodes are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable. However, these episodes have not yet aired, hence they do not yet exist, hence the primary sources do not yet exist. (Don't forget, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page.) Alex|The|Whovian 02:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies about the pinging ;$ However, despite your quotes, there are no rules that disallows the use of summaries (that will eventually be reformulated into more detailed versions) before the airing of an episode. No person has complained (that I am aware of) other than you. If you still disagree with such edits, I'll ask around to make it official. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 02:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Big thanks

	For having my back
	Thank you for interfering on the talk page, whether it was a good call or not. Man did that person went overboard. I'd file another report; I just wouldn't know where. I am leaving it alone for now until the user reappears with more inappropriate edits. I don't know how much I can thank you. Bye bye for now :D Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 01:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who

I'll tell the same as I told the IP on his talk page: When it comes to the number of episodes produced in the series, the Xmas special count as regular episodes. It has been like this for a long time. Why the sudden distinction? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Edokter: It has been like this for a long time. Incorrect. The Christmas Specials have always been listed different. Why the sudden change? Besides, Template:Infobox television season states that num_episodes is used for "Number of episodes in the season" - the specials are not part of the series'. They're specials. Unless you can provide a source that states that they're part of the respective series'? (Granted, for Series 9, it also states "This field should remain empty until the season has finished airing".) Alex|The|Whovian 06:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

SHIELD edit

Sorry about that, I was actually reverting what you clearly replaced with the note and there seems to have been a mix up. Ah well. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time

Hello,

In regards to Once Upon a Time, it appears that you seem to contradict yourself. You remove "Daniel" from Henry's name, and say "not every detail is needed", however, there are other little details that you have no problem with. Please explain this. -Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 16:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mmddyy28: I was not aware of these other details. Good job on removing them! And apologies on not being the all-seeing-eye God. Alex|The|Whovian 22:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"S.O.S.", Parts 1 and 2

I split the two-hour season finale "S.O.S." into two parts. Please don't try to fuse them back together into one. Please talk about this on the "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2)" talk page. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: Let's. You've got three editors going against your view - definitely time for discussion and consensus. Alex|The|Whovian 14:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.¹
I did in fact warn you. By removing the post wherein you were warned, you acknowledge receipt of said warning. I am sorry you failed to heed that warning. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note the complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AlexTheWhovian reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: ). The article in question is Gotham (TV series). It looks like you have already reverted four times. You should consider making a promise to stop reverting. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd add that the user should self-revert his fourth revert, as previously (and repeatedly) requested. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: An unfortunate result on your report. Back to editing we go! Alex|The|Whovian 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Wayward Pines

Since you are interested in this edits, you are welcome to discuss them on Talk:Wayward_Pines#Airing as per WP:BRD. Maticsg1 (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to inform you that with refusing to discuss the edit you are continously reverting (and I'm currenťly referring to the edit in the Broadcast section, not the Infobox) you are not acting according to WP:BRD. Status quo is used to prevent changes while discussion lasts, not to use it as an excuse to keep your preferred version without discussing it. Maticsg1 (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Maticsg1: Apologies; I'll be replying soon. Alex|The|Whovian 08:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Atlantis

might I suggest an overhaul of the series overview for Atlantis to reflect the events of both of its' series? Visokor (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Visokor: That might be a good idea. Alex|The|Whovian 14:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Might I also suggest a character list article for the series? Visokor (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Supergirl (U.S. TV series)

@AlexTheWhovian Can you please explain why the section about the leaked pilot episode of Supergirl was totally removed? Claiming it is '...it doesn't need to be included.' is opinion. The pilot episode was leaked, intentionally or unintentionally, but the fact still remains so I am at a lost why you completely deleted the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merklynn (talk • contribs) 15:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Merklynn: Please sign your posts on this talk page so that I know who to ping when replying. And I suggest that you take a look at the article history of The Flash (2014 TV series) at around this time last year when the pilot episode of that series was leaked. It was deemed unnecessary by multiple editors - the same extrapolates to the new Supergirl series. Alex|The|Whovian 15:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Apologies for not signing, I'm rather new to this so I am still learning the Wiki syntax. Thank you for the explanation on your edit. I don't agree with the decision of the removal for a few reasons. 1. It is factual, it happened. It can be written in a such a way that it doesn't 'promote' piracy. 2. I suspect eventually there will be a Wikipedia page whereby there will be a page listing all the 'leaked' programmes on the Internet; no doubt Supergirl, The Flash and even Dr. Who will be listed because it happened. User:Merklynn

@Merklynn: All good. I didn't agree with it at first, but I see the point in not needing the content for the leak of a single episode that's not overly news-worthy. The Flash and Supergirl were only one episode; Doctor Who and Game of Thrones were almost half of their respective seasons, hence the inclusion of the leaks on their respective pages. If you'd like further reasoning, I suggest making a discussion on the talk page of the Supergirl article, so that other editors can weigh in. Alex|The|Whovian 16:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Eurovision

Hi, I have nominated Måns win at Eurovision for a mention at ITN. Take a look. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Terra Nova (TV series)

Thanks for your reversion at Terra Nova (TV series). I've warned Quessler about his edits, so hopefully he'll discuss. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Terra Nova, a question of "editing" style?

Extended content

you reverted the following text: The series documents the Shannon family's experiences as they establish themselves as members of a colony, set up 85 million years in the earth's past, fleeing the dystopian present of the 22nd century. to: The series follows the Shannon family as they travel 85 million years into the past to an Earth of a parallel universe, to escape the dystopian present of the 22nd century. with the following comment: Then update just that bit - there's no need to put it all on five new lines! in reference to my original edit summary: "as they travel", "paralell universe", factually false, see TALK page for detail Am I to assume that you reverted the article text to its former version because you considered the former version correct or because you wanted to "teach" me the "true" source code editing style: this is wrong: The series documents the Shannon family's experiences as they establish themselves as members of a colony, set up [[Late Cretaceous|85 million years in the earth's past]], fleeing the dystopian present of the 22nd century. this is right: The series documents the Shannon family's experiences as they establish themselves as members of a colony, set up 85 million years in the earth's past, fleeing the dystopian present of the 22nd century. Quessler (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC) I reverted it because there's no need to put it all on separate lines. New lines are for paragraphs, not the middle of sentences. As another editor has explained to you on your talk page. Alex|The|Whovian 14:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC) just for clarification, you confess: I reverted the article text, not for any factual incorrectness but for its source code editing style. The readers' interests are of inferior importance to me, as they should be, in my understanding, to any "sensible" wikipedia editor. Are you seriously trying to defend this position? Quessler (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Are you serious trying to put words into my mouth? Learn how to edit properly. Not that hard. Alex|The|Whovian 14:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Of course not, your words speak "loudly" for themselves: I reverted it because there's no need to put it all on separate lines (in the source code). Quessler (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC) You're making a mountain out of an anthill. When you edit, just don't put new lines wherever for no reason. It's really not that hard. Alex|The|Whovian 15:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC) In your opinion, were there any alternative routes you could have taken and if there were, why did you choose the one most irrespective of the article's readers? Quessler (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC) This conversation is over. Learn how to edit properly, and you won't be required to start up such conversations, will you? If you had a problem with my revert, all you needed to do was change the required material without the new lines. Good Articles and Featured Articles aren't based only upon readability - it's also based on the editing style of the article in question. Alex|The|Whovian 15:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Quessler, in the interest of the article's readers, agrees to submit to AlexTheWhovian's wishes. Quessler (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

QUessler - Please stop harrassing AlexTheWhovian on his talk page. As he has quite correctly stated in his latest edit summary talk pages are for discussions, not court hearing-style debates. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort and we discuss issues, generally in an informal way. This is not a court-room, or a contract negotiation. If you wish to discuss edits at Terra Nova, the place to do that is at the article's talk page, not here. You would do well to look at other discussions and see how editors discuss the issues. Your tone is very confrontational at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian deleted the following "unbearable" section conclusion, left behind my "submission", and "forgot" his agreeing:

Conclusion:

AlexTheWhovian agrees to not revert the revert of the current text, if his condition:

change the required material without the new lines.

is met.

Quessler, in the interest of the article's readers, agrees to submit to AlexTheWhovian's wishes.

My original "court hearing-style" layout can be seen here.

Quessler (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed it because it's unnecessary. The conversation is over; go back to editing. Alex|The|Whovian 18:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for getting rid of all those fake titles which keep popping up now and then. It really is annoying. Thanks again though for making sure the wikipedia is correct and all... :)

Badgerdog2 (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello! Just wanted to say thanks for helping me pick the right referrence and for cooperating on the Wayward Pines article. Unfortunately, at least in my experience, a lot of editors that revert changes are not really prepared to discuss edits, they just say something like "I don't agree" and that's it. It may be just my experience, but either way - I appreciate you took the time to discuss it. Maticsg1 (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Maticsg1: Glad to help out! It was great that we could come to an agreement on the references. Alex|The|Whovian 07:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

From The Doctor to my son Thomas

I noticed that you had added a PROD notice to the above article. I pretty much agree with the point you were making and had previously raised this on the talkpage Talk:From_The_Doctor_to_my_son_Thomas/Archive_1#Why_is_this_subject_suitable_for_inclusion.3F here (now archived). The only real further avenue is to open an AfD discussion, but although there are a lot of strong arguments to say that the phone video was ephemeral and without any lasting legacy, there will be a lot of people who will argue that there was so much press attention that it must be notable - so I would predict the fans of the show will outnumber any voices to the contrary. --_nonsense ferret 13:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello, I'm Lightsout. Your recent edit to the page Love Child (season 2) appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lightsout (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Defiance

I was trying to fix the episode list now that seasons 1 & 2 have a page but my laptop keeps going slow on me even kicking me out.S hannon434 (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@S hannon434: All good! Good job with the season pages! The only issue I had was when the Season 3 and Web-Series tables were removed from the List of Episodes page. Alex|The|Whovian 07:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

GoT

More seriously, I made it clear I needed help citing it. I made it clear what the citation was. You clearly were capable of helping me, either by giving me the information I needed or by just formatting a citation to the thing I said was a source. Instead you went out of your way to be unhelpful. That was just plain mean. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Winter's Tulpa: You didn't make it clear, you made it sarcastic. Such editors should probably look at the documentation for templates they're using, or documentation for referencing reliable sources. (Which you still need to do, as the way you're currently doing it is incorrect. But I'll leave that for another editor.) Alex|The|Whovian 06:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I made it sarcastic after my initial edit, with a summary saying "here's a reliable source for it, but I don't know how to cite it," was reverted with a simple "figure out how to cite it" instead of any sort of effort at helping me. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Alex, please don't WP:BITE. Prhartcom (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Robot episodes airdates, edit revert

You reverted my edit a few minutes ago. I found another source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4158110/episodes?season=1&ref_=tt_eps_sn_1
Would that source be reliable? Tommy (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tommy~enwiki: Hi Tommy, thanks for the question! Unfortunately, IMDb is in the same position as the source that was previously used on the article - it's open to be edited by anyone. Sources like Zap2It, FutonCritic and Rotten Tomatoes (currently used for the titles) are the best sources to go by. Alex|The|Whovian 03:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello ATW. The relevant guideline for Tommy~enwiki is WP:RS/IMDB. While I would say that the bulk of their info is legit but they do not come close to having the proper oversight or fact checking that Wikipedia has. You can't contact them directly and getting them to fix something can be nigh on impossible. I have been trying to get them to fix a credit for the actor Barry Jackson for over eight years and the mistake just sits there. Also T, Alex has given you good options to use as a ref. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian and MarnetteD: Thanks guys. I'll refrain from using those sources in the future. I tried to find airdates from the series' official Facebook page and found this comment there that was posted about 11 hours ago:

User: "the next episode...... WHEN? very nice presentation of the first episode"

Official Page: "It won't be long now. More answers will come 7.1 following the 6.24 TV premiere on USA Network."

(Source: https://www.facebook.com/WhoIsMrRobot/posts/929732123760398)

So I assume I'll just have to wait a little longer for the future airdate information. Tommy (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:FACEBOOK T and just be careful as you proceed. MarnetteD|Talk 04:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tommy~enwiki: I've now included the airdates again, with The Futon Critic sourced, as while the titles aren't displayed in the source, the Prod Codes are, and none of them are projected dates.

Something to think about

Hi again A. Re: this edit. When I looked at it I didn't revert because I think I understood the IP was getting at. They were allowing for the fact that the TV film was not directly produced by the BBC. I wonder if a parenthetical or footnote could be added to describe things. OTOH it might be too unwieldy to try to go into those specifics at that point in the article. I just thought it was something to consider. Cheers to ya and I hope you have an enjoyable weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 03:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Hey, Marnette. I understand what the IP was getting at as well, but the series did start in 1963, and is running to the present day. It definitely might be something to note later on in the article that the film wasn't produced by the BBC (though still part of the series' canon), but I'm not sure that it's noteworthy enough to go straight into the lead. Alex|The|Whovian 05:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi AlexTheWhovian, MarnetteD is quite correct, and I suggest being careful about WP:OWN in reverting an accurate, non-vandalism edit out-of-hand. This could indeed be a topic for discussion on the article's Talk page. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The X-Files

Stop delete comments from others. Wikipedia is a source for everybody. So, if you don't know, why are you deleting all my comments??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiturefantome (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Voiturefantome: Please refer to your talk page. Alex|The|Whovian 17:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Khylin Rhambo

I understand that you want the page to be deleted but you have blanked it instead.Xx236 (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Xx236: Apologies, I should have used a speedy delete template on the article. An actor's page should never be redirected to a character article for a television series, given that they often have more roles than just the one. Alex|The|Whovian 07:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Your user page

I've semi protected your user page for a week to stop the attacks/trolling. Let me know if you'd like to make it permanent. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Many thanks. A week should do it. Alex|The|Whovian 15:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

GoT

Ratings are now out: http://headlineplanet.com/home/2015/06/16/ratings-game-of-thrones-sets-viewership-high-for-season-finale/

Please stop reverting.--YHoshua (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@YHoshua: Poor source - stick to Zap2It's TVByTheNumbers. Alex|The|Whovian 15:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. They draw from the same Nielsen numbers. That source has also been cited previously in GoT Wiki articles.--YHoshua (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Editting suggestion

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll use it; it also helps in other articles.SciGal (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)