This is an archive of past discussions with User:Peter K Burian. 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.
Hi Peter I removed the bit you had added to the Iso Isetta as I think you were misled by the caption you linked to in the C&D article. The only Iso Rivolta involvement was to sell BMW the licence to produce the car and the tooling - this is already mentioned in that section - the "other model" was the BMW car. The BMW car was called the Motocoupe originally, perhaps the headers in the BMW section need looking at. Mighty Antar (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I do not pretend to be an expert at cars of this era. I hope that you are and that you considered the info before deleting the content I had added. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. This was very easy. These days I am mostly editing Wikipedia articles about British politics and that is much, much more complex. Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Peter K Burian. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Actually, I called this a test message, you posted a discussion forum style message on Talk: Rouge_One. This talk page is for improvements on the article, items to be removed from the article and any points in contention about the article, what you posted was a rant about Box office Mojo, not related to the article so yes, I did indeed remove it. The part about you being a journalist is irrelevant on Wikipedia, we don't write the same way you'd write for a magazine or newspaper here. KoshVorlon17:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. The Talk page is for any points in contention about the article; that is what I posted. Contention about the amount of box office gross, news articles vs. Box Office Mojo. But I will change the title of the topic to reflect that more clearly. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
January 2017
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Talk:Stranger Things (TV series), please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the edit summary field.
It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance.
Please take note of the part that states that using the preview button "prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history". At the time of this post, 39 out of the most recent 50 entries at Talk:Stranger Things (TV series) were made by you, mostly with modifications to your previous replies. Thank you.Alex|The|Whovian?15:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
That is good advice, Alex. To be hones, I had never noticed the Preview option. I wonder why no one else has ever suggested this to me? Thank you. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustBerry (talk • contribs) 16:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Reference errors on 17 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hi, Peter. A word of caution about television episode summaries in list articles: Per MOS:TV, editors should try to keep them between 100-200 words, or -300 if a longer or involved episode. Most Longmire summaries exceed that, but I don't think any editor-sticklers care. Just reminding you if you venture into more mainstream shows. Thanks. — Wyliepedia03:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Labatt Brewing Company into North American Breweries. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Diannaa. I was not aware of this procedure but will keep it in mind for future. Sometimes I copy content that I had written, into several articles (e.g. about various beer companies) but yes, sometimes I do want to copy others' content into another article. Good to know. Cheers! And I just copied your red flag; I had no idea how to do that.Peter K Burian (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)🍁
I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Diannaa Which articles do you mean,Dianna? If any one about Puerto Rico, I wrote much of the new content on one of the articles in the past week or so. Then, I copied some of that content to one of the many others dealing with a similar Puerto Rico topic. If the access dates are recent, I added that content because I am virtually the only one doing edits on that topic now.
Granted, sometimes, I may also have copied older content in a paragraph that I had added to. So, perhaps I was not the sole author of everything I copied.
I saw the example you provided re: wine; OK I will try to find that because I'm not sure of the format of the method I am supposed to use. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Diannaa. OK, I just did an attribute. See the Puerto Rico article.
02:26, 23 February 2017 Peter K Burian (talk | contribs) . . (270,087 bytes) (+314) . . (→Plebiscites on statehood or independence: copied content from History of Puerto Rico; see that page's history for attribution)
ok, I found the one you are probably discussing. Proposed political status for Puerto Rico: Difference between revisions
Latest revision as of 01:12, 23 February 2017 (→Commonwealth status: Attribution: content in this section was copied from Federal voting rights in Puerto Rico on February 22, 2017. Please see the history of that page for attribution.)
You are right about that one. This was a section that I had not written, so I should have done the attribution. (The content I added all has recent access dates.) I wish the attribute procedure were not as complicated as it seems. (Or, if I did it correctly in the example in the note above, perhaps it's easier than I thought.) Thanks for staying with me as I try to figure this out. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
You are right, it's not really very complicated: Just add a note in your edit summary at the destination article stating where you got the prose. Here's a sample edit summary: "Attribution: content in this section was copied from Federal voting rights in Puerto Rico on February 22, 2017. Please see the history of that page for attribution." I do this even when I am the sole author of the material being copied, because it leaves a clear trail as to what happened. It would simplify my work if you would add attribution in all instances too, and save me time when I am checking the bot reports. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
PLEASE can you take more care with your reference formating on Chantry Island Lightstation Tower you are adding simple urls in brackets and not using ref name for multiple refs when appropriate, it's getting rather disruptive when you clearly know how to do it correctly. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I fixed a couple that I added but looks like I need to fix some more. It got very cloudy this aft so I can do so now.
This begs the question as to whether WP accepts such citations. I agree, they are not ideal but was under the impression that they are acceptable. I will find out ASAP. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I have 35,676 pages on my watch list and as far as I can recall only the ones you have edited use this reference format! Theroadislong (talk)
@Theroadislong OK, I have the official word from an Admin On the English Wikipedia now.
:(talk page stalker) The citation template is to help combat link rot and assist with a consistent reference format. Its usage is a good practice, and you should use it if you have the time (Or use a tool like reFill to assist), but using a raw URL to source something is fine. Sourcing is more important than perfect CS1 templates.
Even so, I promise I will start using the full citation templates again starting right now.
Serge was not available so a different Admin answered me. I don't think her name is necessary but here is what her page says:
Howdy. I mostly patrol various VG related articles for vandalism, but also help with sources, rewrites, and adding recent developments. I'm also involved in helping maintain templates and modules for the WP:VG project. I do a fair amount of gnome-like minor cleanup. I also spend time reviewing or patrolling edit requests, pending changes and recent changes.Peter K Burian (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit summaries, multiple consecutive edits
Hello, Peter: A couple suggestions, if you don't mind:
Please make a habit of providing an edit summary when you make a change to an article. Doing so makes it easier for your colleagues here to understand the intention of your edit.
Plus, it will be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This keeps the page history of the article less cluttered.
Hi Eric. Which article do you mean. I usually do provide edit summaries although perhaps not every time. A good reminder to do so.
I use a pc and Windows and it does not give me a preview button. Someone sent me a screen shot as to where it appears on their screen but it does not on my screen.. I would use it if I could..happily. Cheers. Peter
Hi Peter- It was Quebec City that first caught my eye, but I saw a lot of others in your contributions. I've never heard of the "Show preview" button being missing--that's odd. It should be right next to the "Save changes" button, between it and the "Show changes" one. I would suggest posting a question about it here: Help_talk:Show_preview. Erictalk13:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, good news. When I use Google Chrome instead of Internet Explorer, I do have a Show Preview and Show Changes button. Cool feature! Peter K Burian (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Please don't cut section from one article and then drop them into another article, as you did at County of Brant. Your edit corrupted the formatting of the reference section, and one of the links you added didn't go to the intended target. You have been cautioned multiple times about your sloppy referencing, and User: Diannaa cautioned you above about cutting and pasting. Please take a moment to read some of the advice and warning on your talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
User: Diannaa did not caution me about doing that!!Before scolding me on my own Talk page, try reading the content you are discussing.
Dianaa explained that to me the importance of saying COPIED FROM.... SEE THAT PAGE FOR ATTRIBUTION ... which I did when I made the edit in the Brant County article. ::Granted, I should have fixed the citations and I have since done so.
See the earlier topic Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution and the notes from User: Diannaa.
i.e. Dianaa wrote: While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution.
Somehow in your edits this part got a little messed up: "The area now the village of on the Nith River was first settled in 1847 …". You can probably figure out how to fix it quicker than me. – Modal Jig (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Peter K Burian (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
With this edit you wrote "by 1870, Winterbourne had one store, two hotels, a flour mill and saw mill, two schools and three churches, Church of Scotland, Free Church, and Wesleyan Methodist." You cited this source. Where did you get 1870? Magnolia677 (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I just corrected that to 1864; I thought the County of Waterloo Gazetteer that I was quoting from was from 1870, but I was wrong; it was 1864. Scroll down about five times from the first page of this source to see the title page: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/001075/f2/e010780571_p1.pdf The other three pdf sections did not have the date, but they are just continuations of this one.
I said 1870 in several other articles about towns and villages too, quoting from the relevant sections of the same multi-section Gazetteer. I will need to fix those too, and show 1864 in the citation as well, so readers don't wonder where I got the date. I have fixed it in the Wellesley, Ontario article already. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Let me add an inline citation to the Winterbourne article. For many reasons it is a better citation method. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
ok. Thanks. Peter K Burian from my samsung s7.
Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Goderich, Ontario, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wilmot Township. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thank you for your yeoman's effort adding histories to so many Ontario articles. I do a lot of article cleanup and just finished fine-tuning many of your edits to St. Jacobs. The article is looking nice, but still needs work.
I'd like to give you some suggestions to improve your editing. I'm not trying to be a smarty pants. I just want to give you a few editing tips, because you are clearly a very dedicated editor.
First, an edit summary for each edit is a big help.
Also, it's always best to do draft edits, and then move your final "good copy" into the article. Many editors use their sandbox. I prefer to write my drafts in a text editor like Notepad, and then cut-and-paste my text into the article. Either method prevents multiple small edits to the article you are working on.
Finally, good quality inline citations using templates look very nice, provide more information to readers, and are the best way to prevent link-rot (as may happen using this style). I've added a small tutorial below.
I use three types of reference templates, depending on what source I am citing.
For online articles use...
<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| title =
| publisher =
| date =
| url =
| accessdate =
}}</ref>
Note: you only have to use ONE DATE. If you have a publication date, delete the access date. If there's no publication date, add your access date. But don't add both.
Newspaper:
<ref>{{cite news
| last =
| first =
| date =
| title =
| url =
| work = (name of newspaper)
}}</ref>
If there are multiple authors, use:
| last1 =
| first1 =
| last2 =
| first2 =
For a book...
<ref>{{cite book
| last =
| first =
| title =
| publisher =
| year =
| url =
| pages =
}}</ref>
In the "pages" section, add all the pages in the book that you used. If you need to quote a particular page, add your reference after the quote.
If you have used multiple pages, a good way to keep readers from getting your pages confused is to add "{{rp|23}}" (which will add the page number 23). You can see it used in this article... Bruinsburg, Mississippi.
Finally, the nice part about using these citations is you can use them over and over in the article (without having to use "et al" or re-write the citation).
In the Loch Leven article, I added this source...
<ref name="Anderson">{{cite book | last = Anderson | first = Aaron D. | title = Builders of a New South: Merchants, Capital, and the Remaking of Natchez, 1865–1914 | publisher = University Press of Mississippi | year = 2013 | url = https://books.google.ca/books?id=HVebRBm2LlsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false | pages = 82, 82, 119, 122}}</ref>
See how I added "<ref name="Anderson">"? After the first complete citation, every time I need to add a citation for the Anderson book, all I have to add is "<ref name="Anderson"/>".
And recently, another Admin told me this: :(talk page stalker) The citation template is to help combat link rot and assist with a consistent reference format. Its usage is a good practice, and you should use it if you have the time (Or use a tool like reFill to assist), but using a raw URL to source something is fine. Sourcing is more important than perfect CS1 templates.
With this edit you wrote that West Montrose "is the site of homes built in the past 15 years". What was your source? Also, with this edit you wrote "The horse and buggy was the primary transportation among the Mennonites and some are still seen in the area." You provided these three sources to support your edit: [1][2][3]. The only source which supports any part of this edit was this one which states: "In the late 1800s the primary means of transportation was horse-drawn vehicles". Where in the sources you cited was the rest of your edit supported? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Because cars were not yet invented in 1800. I really don't know what facts in my edit you feel are not supported. Please be specific. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
My message was very specific. Your edits appear as original research which are not supported by the sources you cited. Please answer my two questions. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Friend, I have tried to help you and it was rebuffed. Not a problem. Please note that I will be removing your original research and poorly sourced edits, and will start tagging your page with warning messages. I urge you to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Go ahead with deleting my content as you often do, but I will not agree when every word of the text is fully, and well cited. As usual, I will revise content - based on your critique - before adding it to the text again, if that is appropriate. And you have not tried to help me with this article; quite the contrary. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
How is the Mennonite Encyclopedia an unreliable source? Simply because the editors use a wiki-style format?
'Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Onlinefalls under the umbrella of the Mennonite World Conference Faith and Life Commission. Members of the Management Board include: Mennonite Historical Society of Canada, Mennonite Church USA Archives, Mennonite Brethren Historical Commission, Mennonite Central Committee, Mennonite World Conference and the Institute for the Study of Global Anabaptism'
Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online: The mission of GAMEO is to provide reliable information on Anabaptist-related (Amish, Mennonite, Hutterite, Brethren in Christ) topics, including history, theology, biography, institutions and local congregations. Secular topics from an Anabaptist perspective are also included.
GAMEO includes the full text of the print Mennonite Encyclopedia, and continues to add new content both from North America and around the world. Initiated by the Mennonite Historical Library at Goshen College the site is committed to helping individual groups Peter K Burian (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
You deleted an easily proven fact that a golf course exists. If we cannot allow any content that is uncited, fine; I deleted all other uncited content. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Virtually all of the article, except for the History and the citations that I added to that section, was uncited. It seemed to be copied from some Web site promoting Conestogo, Ontario. You were right; the sentence I added was uncited too, although it would have been easy for you or me to add a citation since there are many articles about the Golf club on the Web. Example:http://www.golfadvisor.com/courses/27304-conestoga-golf-and-country-club-village-moors/93.2% recommend this course
I tried to find a reliable source for the other uncited content in the article, and was unable to do so. I could not even confirm that some of those businesses still exist in the village. Hence, that content needed to be deleted. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I apologize if you feel harassed. As you can tell from my post to CuriousMind01, I was feeling harassed at that time, and reached out to a Feedback Editor asking him to comment on the article's Talk page to try to resolve the dispute. Granted, my comments to him should have been brief, just asking him to comment on the West Montrose, Ontario Talk page without getting into details as to why I was feeling harassed. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I did not specifically revert that. What I did revert is the massive deletion of content from the lead that you did. I suppose that alleged "peacock" comment was part of the revert that I did.
This is the deletion I am referring to: 16:16, 20 April 2017 Magnolia677 (talk | contribs) . . (9,541 bytes) (-1,283) .
I do not understand why those major deletions in the lead were made, when there does not seem to be any consensus in Talk that any of it should have been deleted.
I have inserted the content again - including the full ten citations - so the lead reads as it did before major chunks were deleted.
First, please remove the peacock statement you added back. Second, please read some of the many many cautions other editors have written on your talk page. One of them is about how to indent responses on a talk page. Finally, you renamed the section heading above. This was not what I wrote, and was not my intent. Please change the section heading back to what I wrote. It is your talk page, and you can delete it if you like, but DO NOT change the content of other editor's messages. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This is my Talk page. The heading is as I believe appropriate on my Talk page. I have not revised the comments you posted, but I have a right to revise the title.
The issues relating to the West Montrose, Ontario article are under discussion at Talk:West Montrose, Ontario. I will not continue a debate about this on my Talk page. If you persist in doing so here, I will delete this thread. I have no obligation to retain items here that scold me about edits, especially when the discussion should be on the relevant article's Talk page.
I do not scold you for your edits on your Talk page. Please stop doing so on mine.
WP:TPO is very clear: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page". I urge you to restore the section heading to its original content. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
REPEAT: I have not revised the comments you posted, but I have a right to revise the title of a thread on my own Talk page. I have asked an Administrator to comment on this issue; stay tuned. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I have gotten useful info: 'You can delete anything you want from your own talk page, except a few specific cases, see WP:OWNTALK. Also see WP:BLANKING. You may want to consider including a summary as to why you're removing it (e.g. "remove discussion more appropriate for article talk page") or something similar.
Personal talk page cleanup:WP:OWNTALKAlthough archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users.Peter K Burian (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, User:Sergecross73 specifically told you that you could not WP:REFACTOR another editor's content, which is exactly what you did. Please change the section heading back to what I wrote before you delete it. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I have added another question to Serge afterward about the protocol of changing the heading (title) of a thread on MY own talk page. The title is quite clear IMHO: (Burian Comment: In my view this is not a peacock but a red herring)
His comments, in full (I added the bolding to one phrase):Some thoughts on this: You are in control of your talk page. You are free to remove comments and ask editors not to discuss on your talk page, and generally that should be okay. (There are some exceptions - you still shouldn't be altering other comments on your talk page to make it look like they said something they didn't - such a move would likely be criticized. Also, if an Admin was giving you valid warnings, I'm not sure you'd be successful in asking them to stop - if an editor kept violating policy, I'd keep notifying them of it, personally. But generally, you'd be good.)
As we touched on previously, most experienced editors prefer WP:ARCHIVING talk page messages rather that deleting them outright - so they can more easily be referenced in the future, if need be. I'm an advocate of that - you can see my rather large archive in the upper-right part of my talk page. But that being said, you don't have to do that if you don't want to. Even I don't do it all the time - I do delete purely disruptive comments with no worth - they can still be looked up in the page history if need be.
WP:USERTALK outlines all the details of user talk pages, if you want to look into it more. Or you can ask me further questions if you have any.
I...can see both sides of this. Magnolia's message was altered a little bit, but Burian did seem to do it in a way that makes it look like the alterations came from him, not Magnolia. I really don't think either of you should be too concerned about it. Peter, sometimes people chose unflattering section titles...but they don't necessarily need to be tinkered with either - other editors aren't likely to make a snap judgement off of a one-word section title. (Just because they write it, doesn't make it true, you know? Not that I'm picking sides, I haven't looked into the core of your disagreement here.) Similarly, Magnolia, I don't think you need to be too concerned either, as reader would probably generally not believe the entirety of the section title Peter added would be written by you, based off the wording and content, and even if they did, they'd probably be more confused than thinking any negative feelings towards you. It was a change that didn't really need to be made, followed by concerns about it that didn't really need to be made. Overall, just try to get back on track with your initial concerns... Sergecross73msg me18:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks; I deleted my comment from the title of the thread. I do not consider that as revising anything that Magnolia677 had written. It was clearly my comment on his choice of title. But OK, I deleted that anyway. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
