![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
An editor ( User:Jayen466) has added a significant amount of material here, which mainly consists of several paragraphs of quotes from a Mr French of Wiki-PR, for instance
“ | We’ve been painted like we’re some kind of evil entity out there scrubbing truths from Wikipedia that are bad about people and companies. What are we actually doing? We’re starting with legally actionable libel. People call us. They’re upset. They’re crying. They're pissed. They typically have a lot of money. They are one hair trigger away from suing the Wikimedia Foundation and/or trying to subpoena to find out who the editors are who smeared them, whether it is an anonymous IP [address], which is almost always the case, or an actual editor. | ” |
A couple of things about this. This is giving an awful lot of weight to Wiki-PR, in that the "Community ban and cease-and-desist letter" section now consists of two-thirds of it being quotes from Wiki-PR, which is probably not ideal.
Secondly, you have to assume that French's statement isn't accurate. I mean, I know that we include rebuttals and so forth in issues like this and rightly so. But these sort of things are essentially pro-forma. Everyone understands that of course people are going to defend themselves, and, especially absent specific particulars which can be evaluated, this is near worthless compared to neutral third-party assessments. So while we do include rebuttals like this, leaving it simple, along the lines of "French denied the allegations", is a better service to the reader than including multiple paragraphs of self-serving flackery.
If we did want to leave the material in, I suppose as a service to the reader we'd then have to add material about our effective anti-libel mechanisms such as watchlists, notice boards, OTRS, and so forth. I don't know if we want to go down a point-counterpoint path like that. Better to stick mainly to facts of the case, and mostly leave assessments to reasonably neutral third-party sources if there are any, I would say.
It's frustrating because the editor making the additions, User:Jayen466, is a WO mod and I gather doesn't much like the Wikipedia or, I guess, the ideas behind it. I'm sure that he's confident that French is telling it like it is here, and it's reasonable to infer that his goal here is to help Mr French get his point across rather than construct the best article we can. That's a problem. Editors are generally advised to avoid areas where they're not able to be fair-minded or where their motivation is to have the reader come away with a particular take on a controversial issue. I like the Wikipedia and would prefer to see it thrive rather than fail or be degraded, and so persons such as Mr French are anathema to me, which is one reason why I don't much edit this article. It would be a kindness and show character if User:Jayen466 and other WO regular with the opposite view would follow a commensurate hands-off policy, I think.
Anyway, considering all this, I've undone these additions. I think it was better before. It's difficult to get editors on the Wikipedia who don't have an opinion one way or the other about the Wikipedia, which IMO is a good reason why this article shouldn't exist. But it does. Since it does, let's all try our best to be fair-minded in assessing edits like this. Herostratus ( talk) 01:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
(
edit conflict) Ah well, we're
making
progress, courtesy of
Jinkinson and
Smallbones. Yay!
However, what isn't clear from what we now have in the article is that Morning277 wasn't just any old sockpuppet account caught up in the investigation, but the account after which
the entire investigation was named. As Owens in The Daily Dot put it, "The oldest account associated with the sockpuppet network was called "Morning277". Halleck wrote, "one of the most-prolific accounts named in recent reports, Morning277, might not be run by Wiki-PR, as Wikipedia and media investigations, such this piece from the Daily Dot, have concluded." Vice said the year-long investigation was "[t]riggered by the unusual behavior of an editor named 'Morning277'". I think that should be made clear, and the account named, as it was named in dozens of reliable sources.
Andreas
JN
466
21:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The matter seems fairly trivial. Let's see if I've got this right:
Not terribly important I don't guess, but I suppose it's OK to include it. The way it is now is a little confusing:
It's OK (maybe TMI) but it's sandwiched right in the middle of a paragraph discussing something else. So how about
I'm still not seeing where to fit this in. Between the first and third sentences of the "Investigation and company reaction" section breaks up the flow of the paragraph. I also don't see how this information is useful to the reader. I guess it could be on the grounds that "Morning277 Investigation" was used in some of the news reports. If that's the basis, maybe a separate small section explaining this, something alone these lines:
Maybe in a footnote rather than a separate section? Herostratus ( talk) 01:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
This interview with Jordan French in Business Insider came out just recently. Now, I can understand if people argue that I included too much material from it. I was wondering that myself. But it is now not reflected in the article at all. So, can we at least get the essential points from that interview in here? Neutrality demands it. We can't simply pretend it didn't happen. Andreas JN 466 22:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The person who was interviewed by IB Times denies having any connection to Wiki-PR. If that's true, he doesn't speak for Wiki-PR. —
rybec
01:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
French is making several points in the interview:
Relevant to this discussion and a little bit awkward, but the BI article may be amended to include some alternative points at some point shortly. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 02:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to have this dumb article, and not fold it into Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, we should include a reference to the interview. I have to admit, as a personal aside, that I enjoyed seeing French rub salt into the wound. Good for him. He's right, there's nothing in WMF's terms of service that prohibits conflict of interest editing or paid editing. I hope the WMF is properly humiliated by the interview, as it richly deserves to be humiliated over this issue. Coretheapple ( talk) 23:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Smallbones has made another revert, changing a direct quote from the cited source to original research not contained in the cited source. Could some of you other guys weigh in here, please? Because this is getting silly, and I am beginning to feel I have entered the twilight zone.
For your reference, the source ( Owens) says,
Here is the wording established by my edit:
This is a direct, attributed quote, that meets all the requirements of WP:V. Smallbones' revert returned this to the following:
Does Smallbones' edit have consensus here, and if so, on what grounds please? None of that wording or train of thought is found in the cited source. Thanks. Andreas JN 466 14:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
This archived copy of the Wiki-PR home page says:
Through our Monitoring service, we watch your Wikipedia page 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to safeguard it from unwanted changes that will tarnish your Wikipedia brand.
The Wikipedia policy called "ownership of articles" [4] says "No one [...] has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." The Wiki-PR page also said "With our Page Creation service you can ensure your Wikipedia is 100% accurate, well-researched and tells your story the way you want it told." Another Wikipedia policy page [5] says
Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles [...] must be written from a neutral point of view.
— rybec 20:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh. This is actually amusing. Andreas makes a couple of points:
Why would someone do this and not imagine that people would laugh? I know! If you happen to read Andreas's and Cla68's hangout website WO (not recommended generally; I do it when there are no good alcoholic-clown movies on TV) You see this all the time, so much that it's a "thing". In the same thread, you'll see people bitching because Jimbo is tyrannical dictator and bitching because Jimbo doesn't step in and stop various bad things. In the same thread you'll see people bitching because the WMF is totally corrupt and only interested in financial gain and people bitching that the WMF is moronic for leaving millions on the table. And so forth. Admin so-and-so is a tyrant and and a weakling, yadda yadda. The amusing thing is they never notice this. As long as the preface is "The Wikipedia sucks because..." it doesn't matter what follows. It's funny but also sad, like watching a puppy trying to figure out a pet door or something.
Doing this at WO gets applause and pats on the back, and if you do it enough I guess you start to forget that this doesn't work in the real world. Heh. Anyway, if there was a better way to show that Andreas is here at this article to try to get the point across to the reader that the Wikipedia sucks, however that may be done, I don't know of a better way to prove that then just point out Andreas's own words. Herostratus ( talk) 03:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Extended content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
As discussions here have stalled, with no clear consensus apparent, I have raised the issue for further discussion at the WP:ORN noticeboard. Andreas JN 466 12:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Though I'm normally loathe to make significant changes to this page, I've reverted the recent IP changes in favor of the last (kind of) stable version. Some of the changes appear to be rather transparent attempts at performing reverse SEO (removing info about the ban from the lede, removing client info, etc,) and in doing so also introduced terribly awkward prose. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 06:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty significantly confused by the recent move by User:Timtempleton claiming that consensus supports the action and that he took it because RM is backlogged. Although there appears to be a decent amount of agreement that the previous name was not appropriate, the previous RM explicitly closed as a failure. I'm not reverting it myself at the moment but it seems extremely questionable and is certainly irregular to move an article without even a talk page comment in a way that contradicts consensus in the previous move request. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 16:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
This article is about this company's activities primarily when it was operating under the name "Wiki-PR". While the Wiki-PR web site is still active, the company is operating under a new name. This begs the question: Should the infobox reflect the company as it was in 2013, or as the company is now? I've WP:BOLDly made some updates to show its current status. Please don't revert unless you are also willing to discuss ( WP:BRD). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 16:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It appears to me that Status Labs is the new incarnation of Wiki-PR based on a job interview I recently had with Jordan French. Not fully aware of the Wiki-PR controversy, I interviewed for a PR position with French in their very scruffy office in east Austin. Darius Fisher was "supposed" to be in the interview but according to French, Fisher was in Dubai. As the interview progressed it was apparent that Status Labs is producing and/or editing Wikipedia pages, among other services for clients. Turned out the interview was bogus and instead French was on a fishing expedition for names of potential clients, even asking me who I knew that had a reputation or perception problem. He was rather persistent on this topic and happily filled me in on their referral program, which I believe they refer to as an affiliate program. I was pissed this was not a real job opportunity, did further research on the firm and became aware of the Wiki editing controversy. In my opinion, French and Fisher simply changed the business name and continue their dubious work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.80.131 ( talk) 22:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Wiki-PR founders Jordan French and Darius Fisher, through their F&F Real Estate Ventures, demolished a family-owned piñata store to make way for a SXSW party, comparing its tenants to cockroaches. Their actions prompted Texas congressman Eddie Rodriguez to draft legislation protecting tenants from landlords. gobonobo + c 00:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this on the article now: External audio Public Relations and suspicious pages on Wikipedia, CBC Radio, interview with Simon Owens, October 24, 2013... the link is dead. Also, since audio was removed recently from MyWikiBiz, why is this link tolerated here? - 2001:558:1400:10:35E7:5245:8541:897C ( talk) 16:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have a list of these companies somewhere? How is Wikipedia managing these in 2016? As a volunteer editor, paid editing like this is discouraging.
I came across this one Reputation ( Archived). "Wikipedia Page Editing
"In today’s digital world, Wikipedia is one of the most trustworthy reference sources on the Internet. Wikipedia ranks as the 7th most popular website on the Internet worldwide and attracts millions of readers every day. Most importantly, having a Wikipedia page for yourself or your business is a tremendously powerful asset that will likely rank on your first page and will reinforce your positive reputation to those you work with." [1] Oceanflynn ( talk) 16:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, request for a minor change to wording: " in addition to planting articles online in order to try and gerrymander better potential notability for its clients" - "gerrymander" is not the right word, I would suggest "garner" as a replacement. Creffett ( talk) 14:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I think that the information on the page for Status Labs should instead be merged here as its own section. Status Labs seems mostly notable for the fact that it is tied to Wiki-PR and currently has a notability tag at the top of the page. If the page for Status Labs is going to be only a few sentences long, seems more appropriate to have it as a section here. The World's Signature ( talk) 01:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{db-negublp}} to the top of the article. 2600:1010:B151:5BF4:C5C8:33B5:581A:F4E6 ( talk) 19:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
An editor ( User:Jayen466) has added a significant amount of material here, which mainly consists of several paragraphs of quotes from a Mr French of Wiki-PR, for instance
“ | We’ve been painted like we’re some kind of evil entity out there scrubbing truths from Wikipedia that are bad about people and companies. What are we actually doing? We’re starting with legally actionable libel. People call us. They’re upset. They’re crying. They're pissed. They typically have a lot of money. They are one hair trigger away from suing the Wikimedia Foundation and/or trying to subpoena to find out who the editors are who smeared them, whether it is an anonymous IP [address], which is almost always the case, or an actual editor. | ” |
A couple of things about this. This is giving an awful lot of weight to Wiki-PR, in that the "Community ban and cease-and-desist letter" section now consists of two-thirds of it being quotes from Wiki-PR, which is probably not ideal.
Secondly, you have to assume that French's statement isn't accurate. I mean, I know that we include rebuttals and so forth in issues like this and rightly so. But these sort of things are essentially pro-forma. Everyone understands that of course people are going to defend themselves, and, especially absent specific particulars which can be evaluated, this is near worthless compared to neutral third-party assessments. So while we do include rebuttals like this, leaving it simple, along the lines of "French denied the allegations", is a better service to the reader than including multiple paragraphs of self-serving flackery.
If we did want to leave the material in, I suppose as a service to the reader we'd then have to add material about our effective anti-libel mechanisms such as watchlists, notice boards, OTRS, and so forth. I don't know if we want to go down a point-counterpoint path like that. Better to stick mainly to facts of the case, and mostly leave assessments to reasonably neutral third-party sources if there are any, I would say.
It's frustrating because the editor making the additions, User:Jayen466, is a WO mod and I gather doesn't much like the Wikipedia or, I guess, the ideas behind it. I'm sure that he's confident that French is telling it like it is here, and it's reasonable to infer that his goal here is to help Mr French get his point across rather than construct the best article we can. That's a problem. Editors are generally advised to avoid areas where they're not able to be fair-minded or where their motivation is to have the reader come away with a particular take on a controversial issue. I like the Wikipedia and would prefer to see it thrive rather than fail or be degraded, and so persons such as Mr French are anathema to me, which is one reason why I don't much edit this article. It would be a kindness and show character if User:Jayen466 and other WO regular with the opposite view would follow a commensurate hands-off policy, I think.
Anyway, considering all this, I've undone these additions. I think it was better before. It's difficult to get editors on the Wikipedia who don't have an opinion one way or the other about the Wikipedia, which IMO is a good reason why this article shouldn't exist. But it does. Since it does, let's all try our best to be fair-minded in assessing edits like this. Herostratus ( talk) 01:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
(
edit conflict) Ah well, we're
making
progress, courtesy of
Jinkinson and
Smallbones. Yay!
However, what isn't clear from what we now have in the article is that Morning277 wasn't just any old sockpuppet account caught up in the investigation, but the account after which
the entire investigation was named. As Owens in The Daily Dot put it, "The oldest account associated with the sockpuppet network was called "Morning277". Halleck wrote, "one of the most-prolific accounts named in recent reports, Morning277, might not be run by Wiki-PR, as Wikipedia and media investigations, such this piece from the Daily Dot, have concluded." Vice said the year-long investigation was "[t]riggered by the unusual behavior of an editor named 'Morning277'". I think that should be made clear, and the account named, as it was named in dozens of reliable sources.
Andreas
JN
466
21:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The matter seems fairly trivial. Let's see if I've got this right:
Not terribly important I don't guess, but I suppose it's OK to include it. The way it is now is a little confusing:
It's OK (maybe TMI) but it's sandwiched right in the middle of a paragraph discussing something else. So how about
I'm still not seeing where to fit this in. Between the first and third sentences of the "Investigation and company reaction" section breaks up the flow of the paragraph. I also don't see how this information is useful to the reader. I guess it could be on the grounds that "Morning277 Investigation" was used in some of the news reports. If that's the basis, maybe a separate small section explaining this, something alone these lines:
Maybe in a footnote rather than a separate section? Herostratus ( talk) 01:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
This interview with Jordan French in Business Insider came out just recently. Now, I can understand if people argue that I included too much material from it. I was wondering that myself. But it is now not reflected in the article at all. So, can we at least get the essential points from that interview in here? Neutrality demands it. We can't simply pretend it didn't happen. Andreas JN 466 22:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The person who was interviewed by IB Times denies having any connection to Wiki-PR. If that's true, he doesn't speak for Wiki-PR. —
rybec
01:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
French is making several points in the interview:
Relevant to this discussion and a little bit awkward, but the BI article may be amended to include some alternative points at some point shortly. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 02:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to have this dumb article, and not fold it into Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, we should include a reference to the interview. I have to admit, as a personal aside, that I enjoyed seeing French rub salt into the wound. Good for him. He's right, there's nothing in WMF's terms of service that prohibits conflict of interest editing or paid editing. I hope the WMF is properly humiliated by the interview, as it richly deserves to be humiliated over this issue. Coretheapple ( talk) 23:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Smallbones has made another revert, changing a direct quote from the cited source to original research not contained in the cited source. Could some of you other guys weigh in here, please? Because this is getting silly, and I am beginning to feel I have entered the twilight zone.
For your reference, the source ( Owens) says,
Here is the wording established by my edit:
This is a direct, attributed quote, that meets all the requirements of WP:V. Smallbones' revert returned this to the following:
Does Smallbones' edit have consensus here, and if so, on what grounds please? None of that wording or train of thought is found in the cited source. Thanks. Andreas JN 466 14:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
This archived copy of the Wiki-PR home page says:
Through our Monitoring service, we watch your Wikipedia page 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to safeguard it from unwanted changes that will tarnish your Wikipedia brand.
The Wikipedia policy called "ownership of articles" [4] says "No one [...] has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." The Wiki-PR page also said "With our Page Creation service you can ensure your Wikipedia is 100% accurate, well-researched and tells your story the way you want it told." Another Wikipedia policy page [5] says
Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles [...] must be written from a neutral point of view.
— rybec 20:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh. This is actually amusing. Andreas makes a couple of points:
Why would someone do this and not imagine that people would laugh? I know! If you happen to read Andreas's and Cla68's hangout website WO (not recommended generally; I do it when there are no good alcoholic-clown movies on TV) You see this all the time, so much that it's a "thing". In the same thread, you'll see people bitching because Jimbo is tyrannical dictator and bitching because Jimbo doesn't step in and stop various bad things. In the same thread you'll see people bitching because the WMF is totally corrupt and only interested in financial gain and people bitching that the WMF is moronic for leaving millions on the table. And so forth. Admin so-and-so is a tyrant and and a weakling, yadda yadda. The amusing thing is they never notice this. As long as the preface is "The Wikipedia sucks because..." it doesn't matter what follows. It's funny but also sad, like watching a puppy trying to figure out a pet door or something.
Doing this at WO gets applause and pats on the back, and if you do it enough I guess you start to forget that this doesn't work in the real world. Heh. Anyway, if there was a better way to show that Andreas is here at this article to try to get the point across to the reader that the Wikipedia sucks, however that may be done, I don't know of a better way to prove that then just point out Andreas's own words. Herostratus ( talk) 03:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Extended content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
As discussions here have stalled, with no clear consensus apparent, I have raised the issue for further discussion at the WP:ORN noticeboard. Andreas JN 466 12:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Though I'm normally loathe to make significant changes to this page, I've reverted the recent IP changes in favor of the last (kind of) stable version. Some of the changes appear to be rather transparent attempts at performing reverse SEO (removing info about the ban from the lede, removing client info, etc,) and in doing so also introduced terribly awkward prose. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 06:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty significantly confused by the recent move by User:Timtempleton claiming that consensus supports the action and that he took it because RM is backlogged. Although there appears to be a decent amount of agreement that the previous name was not appropriate, the previous RM explicitly closed as a failure. I'm not reverting it myself at the moment but it seems extremely questionable and is certainly irregular to move an article without even a talk page comment in a way that contradicts consensus in the previous move request. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 16:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
This article is about this company's activities primarily when it was operating under the name "Wiki-PR". While the Wiki-PR web site is still active, the company is operating under a new name. This begs the question: Should the infobox reflect the company as it was in 2013, or as the company is now? I've WP:BOLDly made some updates to show its current status. Please don't revert unless you are also willing to discuss ( WP:BRD). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 16:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It appears to me that Status Labs is the new incarnation of Wiki-PR based on a job interview I recently had with Jordan French. Not fully aware of the Wiki-PR controversy, I interviewed for a PR position with French in their very scruffy office in east Austin. Darius Fisher was "supposed" to be in the interview but according to French, Fisher was in Dubai. As the interview progressed it was apparent that Status Labs is producing and/or editing Wikipedia pages, among other services for clients. Turned out the interview was bogus and instead French was on a fishing expedition for names of potential clients, even asking me who I knew that had a reputation or perception problem. He was rather persistent on this topic and happily filled me in on their referral program, which I believe they refer to as an affiliate program. I was pissed this was not a real job opportunity, did further research on the firm and became aware of the Wiki editing controversy. In my opinion, French and Fisher simply changed the business name and continue their dubious work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.80.131 ( talk) 22:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Wiki-PR founders Jordan French and Darius Fisher, through their F&F Real Estate Ventures, demolished a family-owned piñata store to make way for a SXSW party, comparing its tenants to cockroaches. Their actions prompted Texas congressman Eddie Rodriguez to draft legislation protecting tenants from landlords. gobonobo + c 00:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this on the article now: External audio Public Relations and suspicious pages on Wikipedia, CBC Radio, interview with Simon Owens, October 24, 2013... the link is dead. Also, since audio was removed recently from MyWikiBiz, why is this link tolerated here? - 2001:558:1400:10:35E7:5245:8541:897C ( talk) 16:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have a list of these companies somewhere? How is Wikipedia managing these in 2016? As a volunteer editor, paid editing like this is discouraging.
I came across this one Reputation ( Archived). "Wikipedia Page Editing
"In today’s digital world, Wikipedia is one of the most trustworthy reference sources on the Internet. Wikipedia ranks as the 7th most popular website on the Internet worldwide and attracts millions of readers every day. Most importantly, having a Wikipedia page for yourself or your business is a tremendously powerful asset that will likely rank on your first page and will reinforce your positive reputation to those you work with." [1] Oceanflynn ( talk) 16:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, request for a minor change to wording: " in addition to planting articles online in order to try and gerrymander better potential notability for its clients" - "gerrymander" is not the right word, I would suggest "garner" as a replacement. Creffett ( talk) 14:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I think that the information on the page for Status Labs should instead be merged here as its own section. Status Labs seems mostly notable for the fact that it is tied to Wiki-PR and currently has a notability tag at the top of the page. If the page for Status Labs is going to be only a few sentences long, seems more appropriate to have it as a section here. The World's Signature ( talk) 01:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{db-negublp}} to the top of the article. 2600:1010:B151:5BF4:C5C8:33B5:581A:F4E6 ( talk) 19:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)