EyesoftheFlash

Draft:Geoff Green

Hi. I came across your article. Sadly, despite the effort you have put into it, as it currently is, it has no hope of being approved.
So I thought I'd try to give you some help in improving it. Accordingly, I made some changes which indicate some of the things that are wrong with it. These changes are not exhaustive, just indicative.

The major problems I've noticed are:

• The sources are almost all from the same site.
• That site is a blog. "The Wikipedia Gods" require that "reliable sources" be used, (see WP:RS), and blogs are not considered to be reliable sources.
• LinkedIn is not considered to be a reliable source, either.
• The sources are almost all written by the same author - Phogue a.k.a. Geoff Green. "The Wikipedia Gods" require that the sources be independent of the article author and the article subject.

Other possible major problems might be:

• Does this guy satisfy Wikipedia notability requirements? (I have my doubts, but I'm not making the decision.) I suggest you read WP:NN, if for no other reason than if/when the reviewer says he's not sufficiently notable you'll have thought of counter arguements.
• The article is overly long and overly detailed for a 33 year old ex-gamer turned programmer - have a look at what other Flinders alumni like Terry Tao and Rod Brooks had achieved by age 33, and how much detail it's been given in wikipedia.

A couple of minor problems easy to fix & avoid:

• In dates, use 1 January 2018, not the 1st January 2018, 1st January 2018, or 1 Jan 2018.
• With references, put the <ref></ref> after the punctuation, not before. (e.g. Example text.<ref></ref> Not Example text<ref></ref>.)

There's probably lots of other stuff too. If you have questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. This makes interesting reading. You made a solid attack on the notability issue. I'm not in a position to tell you whether it's sufficient, but if it's not, you've certainly "put the ball in the reviewer's court" to explain why he's not.

Independent of whether it's a blog or not, the article's weakest point is that it largely relies on a single source that is not independent — or failing that, there are so many references to the Phogue source that any other sources "get lost in the noise". If you can somehow make it more obvious that you are not relying on a single source, you'll be standing on much firmer ground.

And I'll re-iterate that the article is overly long and overly detailed. If you can somehow tighten it up and prune it some, again I think you'll be standing on much firmer ground. After having read the article the first time, I came away with the impression there was a lot of duplication. (On re-reading I saw it was more a case of summary in the lead and expansion in the body, but nevertheless there's still a feeling of duplication.) Maybe you might want to reread the article with a view to addressing that impression?

Anyway, good luck. As I said, if you have questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Afterthought: There are too many short paragraphs. When re-reading, you might want to give that some thought too. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment

I didn't spend a couple of hours editing your draft to have you ignore the changes:

• Geoff Green, not Geoff Green
• "born 5 September 1984", not "born 5th September 1984"
• similarly, dates in references (18 August 2008), not (18th August 2008)
• Why restore <nowiki></nowiki>?
• You misuse the word "thereafter". In almost every case when you use it, it adds no value and gives a better result if removed.
• You misuse "to which". Most of your uses result in sentences which don't make sense.
• "Green began his tertiary education when he completed" - Err no. He didn't begin when he completed it. He ended when he completed it.
• "Thereafter in 2007, Green began studying at Flinders University to which he studied Computer Science, Physics and Mathematics." - Yuk! "In 2007 Green continued his tertiary education at Flinders University where he studied Computer Science, Physics and Mathematics."
• "to which on the 21st July 2008 he joined community forum" - "On 21 July 2008 he joined a community forum"
• "and to whom was subjectively considered" - Huh? - "and subjectively considered"
• "Green was flown to Sweden to which he worked alongside" - "Green was flown to Sweden where he worked alongside"
• Use {{Reflist}}, not <references />
• You removed {{AFC submission|t||ts=20180317155238|u=EyesoftheFlash|ns=118|demo=}}<!-- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. -->
• You removed {{{AFC submission|||ts=20180317155440|u=EyesoftheFlash|ns=118}}
• Far too many one and two sentence paragraphs.

And others ... Pdfpdf (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Errr. OK. Work-in-progress. Apologies. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Response

The education section has already been deleted prior to your response.

I've already made mention of the fact that GamingSA was a minor tournament / community. However what was notable was the entrance of a "professional" team that were subsequently humiliated by Unreal 3 and to whom had their legitimacy questioned. Falsely, I might add. What is notable about Unreal 3 is it delved into the classification of a professional gamer. Unreal 3's reputation was built on the fact that it made mockery of the concept "professional gamer". It is a notable precedent. Thanks for helping specify that he was a third-party developer for EA DICE.

EyesoftheFlash (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies

Pdfpdf, It was not my intention to rewrite your contribution to the article. I contain my drafts externally to Wikipedia and I didn't take notice of your contribution to the article. I apologise for this and do appreciate your assistance. I have subsequently fixed the dating issue and will make the recommended grammar changes that you have suggested for the article.

Although being said isn't Wikipedia renowned for its 1-2 sentence paragraphs?

Regards,

EyesoftheFlash (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Geoff Green (March 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Geoff Green and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Geoff Green, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, EyesoftheFlash! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Chetsford (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Adaptability

I'm guessing the "Wikipedia Gods" don't really have a clue about this field.

Cybergamer is a reliable source, so lets start from there.

EyesoftheFlash (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like I'm being rude, but I warned you (several times) that I thought it unlikely that the reviewer would think that Cybergamer is a reliable source. When it comes down to it, if you want to play in the wikipedia backyard, you have to play by the Wikipedia Gods' rules. It's taken me 10 years of pain to get used to some of the rules, and there are other rules that I'll never get used to and still think are illogical and ill-considered. But, well, that's the rules. I was just trying to save you some pain.

I'm guessing the "Wikipedia Gods" don't really have a clue about this field. - You'd be wrong with that guess. At this point in the proceedings, the Gods are focusing on "The Rules", and as they & I have explained, you have not satisfied "The Rules". As I've said before, the issue is not Cybergamer; the issue is your over-reliance on it. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The other major issue the reviewer raised is notability. It's always seemed pedantic to me, but I've had articles about eminent scientists refused because I didn't say in the opening paragraph that the guy was a this-type-of-scientist eminent for this, that and the other thing. (Even though subsequent paragraphs at the front of the article said that.

So, presumably you're not just asserting that Green is notable because he's a gamer. Just what aspect(s) of being a gamer makes him notable?

Then the tricky bit is finding a non-Cybergamer source that says this. He hasn't appeared in any interviews or newspaper articles, has he? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Testing

For one, I think you mistake me for being angry at the "Wikipedia Gods". Of course, I am somewhat annoyed that my article wasn't approved but honestly if you think I wasn't expecting it, you would be wrong. Its why I defended the piece so aggressively when I got the sense that it was starting to go down hill. What I meant by adaptability is that I won't drop my case even though my article has currently been denied. I, of course, respect the Wikipedia rules. Personally, I think sourcing information in regards to virtual reality needs some reform. Particularly in consideration that I believe Phogue's reliability, validity and notability can be demonstrated by the accountability he has on his website. But that's currently not recognised officially.

What I mean by the Wikipedia Gods not having a clue about this field (noone does), is that whilst there is so much information surrounding eSports its reliability is questioned because there is literally no established international regulation ( like FIFA or FIA ) for its leagues. Its valid information in regards to the Recognition of eSports as a form of legitimate sports.

Furthermore, in terms of eSports, Cybergamer is absolutely a legitimate reliable source. In fact, I am sure those editors whom are dedicated to eSports knowledge would unquestionably agree that Cybergamer deserves a Wikipedia article. I do remind Wikipedia that although I won't question your reasoning for failing the article, it did have the support of a section of Wikipedia dedicated to developing Wikipedia's eSports knowledge. Those with eSports expertise would not consider the information I provided as unreliable, however perhaps it opens up questions as to regards what on Cybergamer can be accepted as reliable evidence.

Here is some facts we can establish about Phogue given the sources:

- Unreal 3 did win the GSA tournament (although the significance of the tournament is unreliable) - The website he created has 1047 pages of registered users (accountability) - Unreal 3 pushed for competitive reform for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Phogue was the subject of an interview with Battlefield Communities - Phogue's Procon product was received with acclaim from the Cybergamer community (Australia's leading eSports organisation since 2007) - A lot of the source material is archived and no longer exists on the Internet (This makes it difficult to investigate the sources)

I'm gonna have good think now. But historically in terms of eSports I think its relevant. Especially when demonstrating Australia's contribution into developing international eSports.

EyesoftheFlash (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment

FYI, as you haven't paid any attention to what the reviewers and others have told you and suggested, and as you haven't made any of the changes they have suggested, your second draft has even less chance of being approved than your first draft (because they told you what was needed and you ignored them). Also, telling them they don't know their elbow from their armpit isn't going to win you any prizes either. Until you start playing the game by their rules, you're wasting your time and theirs. You're free to waste your own time should you so wish, but the reviewers and others will take a dim view of you wasting their time. My 2c worth. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You are just doing your best to sabotage this. I have implemented every recommendation that you have suggested. I'm doing what I can to get this approved, you are no longer being constructive. I have made significant case to which Wikipedia is not consistent in following its policies. I have accurately demonstrated this and therefore in protest, I am submitting the article for a second time. :Its also an example about how "technically", Wikipedia should be hyperlinked. Everything you have said is just negatively implicating this article. Largely, for no reason. Unless, you are going to be supportive here then really, why are you even talking to me? EyesoftheFlash (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Make up your mind. Do you want me to go away, or do you want me to answer your question?

I have devoted a LOT of effort to trying to help you. It's disappointing that all your hard work, (and mine), will not produce the result you want.

Goodbye. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I left the question open ended because I know you have contributed to the page. What you are doing is nonsense, you are contributing to a page that you repeatedly say isn't going to get through. Why don't you go back to editing actual Wikipedia articles. As far as I know your edits and suggestions could be detrimental to this page's efforts, particularly if you are being contradictory in recommending edits but also saying this page has "no hope" of getting through...

Unless you can do something behind the scenes to influence this page's success, then I'll thank you later but otherwise just go away...

EyesoftheFlash (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Note. I fixed the threading here. You haven't even taken the time to understand how we organize talk page discussions in Wikipedia, which is as fundamental here as "please" and "thank you" are in the real world. (see WP:THREAD) You are resolutely ignoring this very basic convention, and it says a lot about your overall approach to Wikipedia. It is fundamentally rude - just like consistently not saying "please" and "thank you" are. I mentioned to you before that you have charged in hard, trying to change things before you understand this place and how it works, and why. One by one people are going to just start ignoring you, and if you keep up your editing privileges will end up restricted or removed. You will do as you will, of course. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologise for not following the threading guidelines, however I wasn't the only one not doing that correctly here. I am doing my best to take things slowly and have a good think about how to proceed. I hope you note that as I learn the rules, I am playing by them. Well I find the approach of whomever denied my article as rude because they don't have a consistent understanding of how Wikipedia policy has been applied. I also find it rude that a person is involved with an article that I am doing my best to publish and to whom that person's intentions aren't entirely clear. I hope this place is about "understanding" as you put it rather than following the guidelines and policies to the letter. Otherwise, if not me then you still will encounter the problems I have identified (for Wikipedia) in the future. EyesoftheFlash (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing new under the sun in Wikipedia. You are not the first person who has charged in here without understanding how WP operates, had their edits rejected, then run around complaining and demanding changes. You will not be the last. So many people misunderstand Wikipedia. They mistake Wikipedia being open with Wikipedia having no real governance. This is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, but you are also obligated to learn the policies and guidelines. This community built the policies and guidelines over the last 16 years to govern itself. The policies and guidelines exist because they matter and they make this project possible. I have pointed you twice now to User:Jytdog/How which provides some orientation to that governance. That's all I can do. You will figure things out, or you will leave angry, or get thrown out of here. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou for the information, Jytdog if you want some assistance in developing a page. Please let me know :)EyesoftheFlash (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing maintenance

What you did here was inappropriate. Part of the AfC review process in the Wikipedia community is seeing how the draft changes from submission to submission.

Do not remove the prior feedback. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, for the sake of legitimacy. I put it back up.EyesoftheFlash (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Notability

I sought some advice here: according to the people involved in the Video games WikiProject, Geoff Green, the subject of the draft, appears not to pass Wikipedia's notability criteria. So afaics this will never become a mainspace article in Wikipedia. Sources that would demonstrate that the subject merits inclusion in Wikipedia seem simply non-existent.

@EyesoftheFlash: do you have any WP:COI w.r.t. Geoff Green, Phogue, or products/events/organisations/people/etc mentioned in your draft article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Well officially, on Geoff Green's talk page it says that the page IS officially supported by the eSports Task Force. This has been screenshot for evidence. I am a self-titled eSports historian whom was involved in the previous generation of eSports. Although I was personally involved in the events at the time, I have never met the subject of the article in person and I am not doing this for monetary value. I am now only looking at this subject in retrospect and have demonstrated in the talk page that I have left out significant information in the story that I could not demonstrate as valid information. I have given arguement as to how this is a notable person in the talk page, and have yet to seen a rebuttal to its response. It largely provides further clarity and information about the legitimacy of esports. I do not intend to vandalise Wikipedia, I wish to be a valued contributor who is actively putting on pioneering information for Wikipedia. If this article is approved, I will not drop my personal standards for any future articles that I may create, or subsequently may edit. This does not mean I hold other users to the same standards. I will not herein remove information that is potentially unsourced or has questionable original thought as it remains legitimate under the policy Ignore all rules. This is assuming Wikipedia can demonstrate it is morally fair and recognises how the subject of this article has contributed to notability within the world of eSports as well as the significant effort to ensure standards for Wikipedia. EyesoftheFlash (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:COI is broader than WP:PAID; WP:COI w.r.t. the article is broader than a WP:COI w.r.t. its nominal subject. For instance, the draft article names quite a number of internet forums relating to gaming etc. Being involved as a (non-paid) volunteer in anything an article seems to promote would normally constitute a WP:COI.

WP:IAR: that policy does not guarantee that any IAR action would stick – e.g., if you're trying to improve the encyclopedia against normal procedures and rules, such action may be quickly undone by whoever thinks that it is not an improvement of the encyclopedia, usually without that person needing to call IAR. So, failing to convince other editors that your IAR action really improves the encyclopedia (more or less the situation in which you are now), means you're causing time sinks for other editors. Usually doesn't end in beauty. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Well I have provided substantial evidence as to why it is a notable subject. I have yet to hear a response as to why it isn't. I have worked very hard to ensure legitimacy. Despite ignore all rules, I hold myself to the above standards.

As to Ignore all Rules, that rule overrides all rules. I didn't make that rule. However I can see why they made it. It didn't take long to see that Wikipedia did not hold itself to any sort of standard. However if there remains decency on Wikipedia, I would like a response to my arguements. I am yet to hear one, so repeatedly saying "it is not notable" without providing a counter-arguement to my point is not a valid reason to say its not notable. Thankyou. EyesoftheFlash (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You've gotten clear answers, and counter-arguments were provided by multiple editors. Your IAR approach has zero support from other editors. The point being that co-editors must accept an IAR action as a true improvement of the encyclopedia – not whether you say it is. Undoing an IAR that is not perceived as an improvement does not even need to be explained, so it all hangs on whether you were able to convince anyone (for clarity: thus far you weren't). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, notability of the subject has been refuted here. Whether that refutation is substantial enough can be tested easily by taking the draft to WP:MfD, as has been proposed.

The still rather incomplete answer to the COI question can be tested at WP:COIN. So for me it's just a question whether we go to COIN or to MfD as the next step. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no counter arguement to any of the specific points made for its notability on the talk page. Officially, according to the page, the eSports Task Force support the page. You have repeatedly demonstrated, going back to the arguement about 'Forum Validity' to have made executive decisions which have been completely misplaced. It was you and a couple of other users in that debate whom used minor policies to justify their decisions without accounting for overriding policies. I subsequently demonstrated to you in that arguement that you are not consistent and not accounting for superior policies. Your further arguements just exposed Ignore all Rules to which is an overriding policy, no matter what you say. EyesoftheFlash (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry mate, I know English isn't your first language and hence why you probably misplaced illusion for Wikipedia. However its an ample opportunity for Wikipedia to finally enter the Information Age for real.

(talk page stalker) EyesoftheFlash, Francis is signalling pretty clearly that he is moving toward the "end game" here. You haven't been around long enough to be able to hear that (and proving very resistant to hearing much of anything.... - we have an essay about that WP:IDHT - as I said there is nothing new under the sun here; you are not the first person to ignore everyone else). The key words were "The still rather incomplete answer to the COI question..." Francis was referring to your writing that you "never met the subject of the article in person and I am not doing this for monetary value". You made a bunch of other disclosure in this post at the draft talk page and the key bits there from my perspective is that you are very clearly part of this eSports world and are emotionally very invested in it, which brings in "advocacy' which is a very close neighbor to actual COI (you should read the "advocacy" thing). In any case, you wrote there, that you competed against the subject of the article and " I am also had influence of the sources used to reference this page." Would please say a bit more about that last bit - what do you mean by "had influence"? Please answer broadly, not narrowly so that we can figure out better if there is any COI here as defined in WP that may be driving your advocacy somewhat. Also would you please disclose if you work for Phogue or any company that runs any of the websites you cite. (COI is broader than being paid to edit). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume Ignore all Rules does not exist for a bit. In terms of Advocacy, I assume you mean the "Why" as to what the article was created. However if the article is demonstrated to be valid in terms of actual content, then what does it matter of the advocacy? To an extent all users have advocacy, they are all editing for a reason. This just says if a person has knowledge in a specific field and has reasonable grounds for understanding the topic, then they are technically not allowed to comment on the topic as they know about the topic. It should be more the content of the article, rather than the person who wrote the article matters. This is probably one of the many reasons for Ignore all Rules. EyesoftheFlash (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• These are your three mainspace edits thus far:
  1. [1] → undone
  2. [2] → undone
  3. [3] → undone

Further there's the shreddable draft and reams of time-consuming (but ultimately rather counterproductive) talk page interaction. Your contention that you're somehow saving Wikipedia from its downfall has made no lasting impression. Makes one wonder when the net benefit for the Wikipedia project is going to kick in? It's a question of time and energy: anyone would welcome an additional productive member of the editing community, and many are prepared to invest resources to make that come true. However, editors that never leave the time sink realms quickly lose all support. So, please, again, as I proposed before: edit the encyclopedia in other topic areas than the Phogue-related, and a more positive reassessment might be possible soon. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay but so you know, in removing that content you have just broken Ignore all Rules (as has myself and most users), this means you are a corrupt user unless the rule is defined to be corrupt. Also I would not put all that time and effort into the article if I did not think it was truly legitimate article. EyesoftheFlash (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually think this problem is really easy to fix and isn't the end of Wikipedia.EyesoftheFlash (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Taking a Break

I am human, I need a break from relentlessly pursuing this debate. Please don't break Ignore all Rules and shred my article while I'm away. When I come back, I promise I won't immediately push this issue.

Regards, EyesoftheFlash (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, waits until I'm offline to act. Never responded directly to any of the concerns of the article whilst it was live. The article never officially had a second review, the admin took authority into his own hands. This particular admin was noted to have used minor policies in the Valdity of Internet Forum debates as his justification for putting a page under "fatal" review when more superior policies overrided his point of view. Tells the user that he is willing to give concessions for the article to be published, however as soon as the user's back is turned he takes the first opportunity to remove the article because he cannot match the user while in his presence. He also potentially escalated a huge issue. Jytdog whom I assume has demonstrate some care for policy, can you get rid this Francis Schonken guy as admin. Its people like him that there is reason that Ignore all rules is allowed to exist. To further demonstrate this that "commenting out" is his reason for deleting the page. Ignore all rules suggests you can only construct on Wikipedia to allow more information. This therefore contravenes any destructive rule. It was quite clear he understood this rule and yet just abused it anyway. There are further examples in the past where he has demonstrated that he does not understand the policies and has made executive decisions despite of this. This is a clear case of abuse of power. EyesoftheFlash (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This can quite easily become a public issue. He demonstrates no respect for the seriousness of the debate. This is not a responsible Admin. He results to the cheapest of tricks to ensure that he maintains respect. He has demonstrated now that he has a clear enough understanding of the English language to understand what he is doing. He basically destroyed an article for no respectable reason. What was he so afraid of?EyesoftheFlash (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I only wanted to make articles, then this idiot comesPdfpdf comes along and puts confusion in my mind. I demonstrated a clear case of the fact I was in the right. Demonstrated that I have been misled by Wikipedia Admins and then out of fear an Admin deletes the article rather than improve Wikipedia. Probably because that he senses that if a Wikipedia overhaul was to arise, then he as an Admin would have less power to do the stupid things that he just done. This issue would not been escalated if that admin demonstrated that he could competently do the job. EyesoftheFlash (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You know what, you are exactly right, I'm just raging and you guys get exactly what you want. Someone who is legitimate gets punished for nothing. I could go take this public and expose how you just let Wikipedia continue to be pure corruption, but fuck it I've got a life. Why couldn't you make a post on the talk page about how you thought the page wasn't notable? How much arrogance and stupidity do you people have? You know damn well I had a good case. Wait until I'm sleeping huh? I guess the best option Francis had. If you can't work out by yourselves how to sort out Wikipedia from people like Francis, I hope you all stew. Dead now, killed in my sleep. EyesoftheFlash (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)