User talk:Alex 21/Archive 22

CatDog episode list

I'm pretty sure I was supposed to change the color codes to match the series overview colors, if that's the case, maybe you or me should change the series overview chart colors to match the episode lists. Icebear244Icebear244 (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sherlock (TV Series) - Recent Edits

Hello Alex,

I see you reverted the collection of reviews I posted in regards to the fourth series of BBC's Sherlock. Perhaps I was testing the waters with the final line, but what I contributed to the page is hugely relevant and a report on the journalism of the series, which absolutely DID (as you can see for yourself via Rotten Tomatoes, for example) receive many scathing reviews. Mentioning this, as it is a major deviation from the series' previous standing in critical circles, is both relevant and noteworthy. As well, the graph showing the series' ratings should be updated to show the fourth series (which premiered, now, SIX months ago), which will indicate a drop in ratings; the fact this remains absent from the page appears to show major bias on the part of Wikipedia, which is not what this site stands for, as you know. As sad as anyone (yourself included) may find the decline of the series' reputation to many, these are the basic facts and there is no reason for them to be removed from the page.

Please respond.

Thank you, SB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.206.157.65 (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. To start off with, I would appreciate if you signed your posts on my talk page with ~~~~. You can read about talk page guidelines at WP:TPG#YES. Thank you.

As for the contributions... You would notice how the "Critical reception" section does not go into major detail concerning any of the previous three series. There is a reason for this and that is due to the fact that that particular article concerns the programme as a whole; that is, it does not and should not focus on any particular series, but only upon the programme of Sherlock. While the fourth series may have indeed had lower critical reviews compared to previous episodes and series, such detail is not required for it. If an article existed solely for the fourth series of Sherlock, then that is where the information would be added.

For your request that the graph should be updated, if you are talking about the graph captioned "Metacritic ratings per series", you may find out that no score is yet available from Metacritic for the fourth series, per the page for Series 4. If any bias has occurred here, it was the addition of only negative reviews for the series, and not a single review, of which there are many. I may agree that the fourth series saw a decline in the programme, yes, but I do not let that affect my editing experience.

Hope that clears things up. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 17:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for my editing transgression. I reviewed the page and believe I've done it right this time. It is clear that we will reach a point of pure disagreement on the matter (on which you will win, as the editor). As there are no pages for the individual seasons of the show, this information is not relevant anywhere else, unless, for example, you consent to a "Controversy" -- or similarly-titled section -- to be made specifically for more in-depth exploration into each series' individual reviews, which I would be happy to put together as well. I do not see the reason behind refusing to go intro greater detail regarding the critical and commercial reception of the show if someone such as myself is able to provide it.

As well, it is clear at this point -- six months since the finale's premiere -- that there will not be a Metacritic score for the fourth series. In this instance, should the graph not be updated to reflect, for example, Rotten Tomatoes, which provides scores for all four series and is clearly acceptable data as it is mentioned in the body paragraph? Otherwise, we'll be waiting a long time (i.e. forever) on Metacritic.

I believe you meant to say "not a single [positive] review," of which there are many (pushing it). The page is already lauding the entire series (to the point that it is unfair and inaccurate given the backlash to series four), so to explain the one contentious series does not feel like bias, but more like balance, though I understand this is a matter of opinion. I would be happy to revise the paragraph, as well as create similar paragraphs for the others, if that is what it will take for the important and essential (to the history of the series) notes on the fourth series' critical reception to be kept on the page. --S 198.206.157.65 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 2)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (series 2) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

GA on hold, please see Talk:Doctor Who (series 2)/GA1. Sagecandor (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 2)

The article Doctor Who (series 2) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Doctor Who (series 2) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Season 2

No worries - helping where I can - I was glad to see the series 1 get GA. Good luck with your exams. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dresken: Thanks for that! I'm looking at getting all of the revived series articles to Good Article status; by the time Series 9 is reached, Series 10 will be well and truly over, and it'll be nomination-worthy. Perhaps not the classic season articles, though. -- Alex^TW 04:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I've covered all the referencing. But I'm going to leave the lede though, that sort of thing isn't my strong suit. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dresken: Cheers for that, you've done a great job. After my first finals exam today, I'll start working on the rest tonight. -- Alex^TW 01:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sublists

I tried to get enough content to justify sublists for certain TV shows, but it's obviously not good enough for you or User:AussieLegend. Just tell me what you want and leave me alone. --TVBuff90 (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@TVBuff90: You actually need to sit down and find content that's season-specific that's not on Wikipedia, you need to go searching for it and find sources that back up that information. Else, you're just copying across content that is already in other articles, meaning that the season article is not required. For example, none of the season articles you created contain sufficient, if any, information concerning production. There's a start. Start your splits in the draft namespace, then when you believe there's enough, request that it be reviews and moved into the article namespace if it's approved. We thank you for your edits to split the articles, but at this time, they are not required. -- Alex^TW 01:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Arrow wikipedia Average viewers is wrong (season 5)

Hi Alex thank you for your message, that was my first edit on wikipedia, I have changed the Average viewers from season 5 on Arrow because it is totally wrong on wikipedia, how it could be 2.21 from the moment that Arrow has never up 1.9 million viewers? you can check it (I sum the numbers from the 23 episodes and I divide it with the total number of the episodes (23)) and the result is 1.75 (the number I have changed after I double check it). If I am wrong please can you explain me how this number is (2.21) is given to the users? I don't believe that the current resource is more accurate from this one that I provide.

Waiting for your news for the correction on the mistake or your instructions how this number is comming,

thank you again for your time and your help, friendly regards, Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyFot (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@JimmyFot: DVR viewers in the overview table, different from the overnight viewers in the episode table. And please sign your posts on my talk page with ~~~~. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 01:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes and List of Doctor Who serials

Hi User:AlexTheWhovian, I've noticed sometimes the colours of SpongeBob SquarePants and Doctor Who seasons are a match to the primary colour on top of DVD art, but then some seasons aren't. An example of how they all should look is on List of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia episodes, where all season colours take from the colour on top of the DVD cover, thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: The colour used for a reason should be the primary colour of the DVD as a whole. What season article of Doctor Who uses the method you've mentioned? -- Alex^TW 07:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: The season colours I think should be changed are The Trial of a Time Lord (which should be black or the dark blue of the circles at top), season 24, series 1 (should be the lighter blue at the top of TARDIS), 2 (series 1's current colour suits it better) 2008-2010 specials (should be darker less saturated brown at top). On SpongeBob, it's both movies, season 4, 7 and 8 that don't match. I'll do the changes myself, but thought I'd run it by you because your always editing Doctor Who. If you could sort the exact hex codes out as well please.--Theo Mandela (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Plot & overview

I can see a lot of GA/FA TV series articles {Grey's Anatomy) having both a plot and an overview section. Do you think Quantico should have too? (Redacted) Krish | Talk 12:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Your accusation of WP:OWN makes me very hesitant to want to answer your question, but I will. Those articles were promoted to GA before the discussion and resultant overhaul of WP:TVPLOT, so no, they shouldn't, as the standards have since changed. Realistically, those articles should also be updated. I also recommend you revoke your accusation, given that you've zero basis for it; serious accusations require serious evidence, and lack of that evidence can result in serious repercussions. -- Alex^TW 13:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Krish | Talk 13:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

A Newcastle for you!

Cheers! <eyeroll at [1]> DonQuixote (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: Cheers! I must admit, it gave me a right good laugh when I saw the template notice. -- Alex^TW 15:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

You spend a lot of time pointing fingers and reporting edit warriors, but have failed to discuss the matter yourself. It takes two to edit war, and you're pushing WP:3RR to the limit (and not just in this case.) ----Dr.Margi ✉ 04:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Whatever became of the old Alex who assumed good faith, took responsibility for his own actions, wasn't report happy, and wasn't so quick to run to the drama board of his choosing? He's long gone, and I do miss him. You were edit warring, Alex, and you weren't discussing. Moreover, Ed Johnston's post wasn't a free pass to keep it up. You game 3RR over and over again, then run to AN3 to get the other editor blocked. You both should have been blocked for this latest fiasco; you're part of the problem, not part of the solution, and this edit war is stunningly petty. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually. Restoring so I can face your attacks. "Whatever became of the old Alex who assumed good faith"? He started discussions like User talk:Mondasian Cyberman#June 2017 <-- this one. ANd "took responsibility for his own actions"? He requested permission for reverts before actually doing so, like Special:Diff/787398878 <-- this. I wasn't discussing? It's funny when you've no idea what you are talking about. I did discuss. I wasn't talking about Ed's comment, I was talking about Special:Diff/787399301 <-- this. It was also far from "petty" when edits like this were performed, where the editor deliberately broke source URLs. If this is how you treat people, I truly recommend that you leave psychology. Seems you're too biased and refuse to accept the actual evidence of the situation thrown at you. Unless you have anything to back up the other editor? -- Alex^TW 07:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Genuinely curious as to whether you have a response to this. These are not excuses, but a defense for my actions. I was involved with an editor who refused to take part in the discussion I started. -- Alex^TW 05:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Lucifer

I was just wondering, I found this about Lucifer moving to LA for Season 3. [2] and this from the California gov website, see page 7 [3] it looks like Lucifer is officially moving production from Vancouver to LA for season 3. How would someone place this on the article? 82.15.11.237 (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

BBC TV / BBC-1

Hi

"BBC Television" and "BBC-1" were seen as two seperate entities within the BBC in 1964 (and the months at the end of 1963 prior to the changeover).

Check out the BBC Genome service to see how the channel was listed at the change over period in April 1964. It became a new channel by default when BBC-2 was introduced.

What harm does it do adding one line noting that the first five months of Doctor Who went out on BBC-TV? None. Less than none?

I have worked for the BBC and been researching UK television for far longer than you have been alive, and am actually in the country it serves, so I might have some more idea on how the BBC worked.

Besides, there's no consistancy on wiki on the channel name. The Quatermass serials of the 1950s, for example, are just listed for 'BBC'. Not 'BBC-1', which by your definition of Doctor Who it would merit it (it doesn't, but that's another matter). They actually went out on the BBC 'Television Service', but 'BBC' would suffice.

From 23 November 1963 to April 21 1964, Doctor Who was broadcast on "BBC-TV". The entry should be amended to reflect that.

David Brunt Media archivist/researcher/author [for the BBC and others]

Take it to the article's talk page, not here. And please note WP:COI. -- Alex^TW 13:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Just answer the point here.

I worked for them, doesn't mean I have any conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User talk pages are not for article disputes. Article talk pages are for article disputes. Any further responses here will be reverted per WP:TPG. -- Alex^TW 14:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The Pilot (Doctor Who)

No reason given for revert? Elaborate on why the episode's link to "Category:LGBT-related television" episodes was removed? --TheGnerd (11:33 EST 1 July, 2017)

Simply because the episode has a single LGBT character, does not make the episode LGBT-related. And please close the bold formatting in your posts on my talk page. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 15:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but it's about a same-sex love story between two queer women who like each other, so I'd argue that it is LGBT-related. -- TheGnerd (13:13 EST 1 July, 2017)

Toast sandwich

DoctorWho42 has given you a Toast sandwich! Bread (🍞), toast (🔥), and bread (🍞) promotes WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toast sandwiches are wonderfully delicious! They are made by putting a thin slice of toast between two thin slices of bread with a layer of butter, and adding salt and pepper to taste. Its origins can be traced to the Victorian years. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a toast sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of toast sandwiches by adding {{subst:Toast sandwich for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 17:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Season 1 and 2

You should see the secon season article. This is what I wanted to do with the article. I know I should have directly copy/edited like what I did now. But that time I thought it would be easy to remove everything and start from scratch. I hope you understand what I wanted to do.Krish | Talk 20:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

For when you return... Concerning your comments about me at the full report, I have not continuously reverted you, it is you who assumes I do, but in reality, I barely edit the articles now that the seasons are over.

You may have expanded upon them in great detail, and the community most definitely thanks you for your good work, but that doesn't give you the right to mass-delete content that others have provided, and edit-war over it; an editor's good work does not excuse bad behaviour. Yes, you should have simply updated the material after you worked on it.

You stated that you reverted after I reverted you - the edit-war onus is on you. Read WP:BRD - you made the initial edit, you were reverted, and that should have been the final revert before a discussion was started. It shouldn't have started after the second (or more) revert. However, you then went ahead and reverted another editor who restored the content! I was not about to revert you a third time; 1) though, it would not have violated 3RR, as you accused me of, and 2) I was the editor who stopped reverting and started a discussion to prevent any full-out edit-war; you should look to that example.

"Obsessed" with TV articles, you say? I've just edited a lot of them over the past three years, and I know what I'm on about. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 04:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Game of Thrones

Thanks for the helpful message, Alex.

I was unaware of violating any policy or guideline. The reason given by WikiHannibal for reverting the original edit was "looks like PR". In response I started an item in the GOT talk page to discuss the edit, but there were no takers. Apologies if that was the wrong way forward.

And perhaps I'm misconstruing the purpose of the section, but I was operating with the belief that a section titled "Other media and products" might reasonably include other GOT products in other media. Can you advise? Dr John Donaldson (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss the content on the article's talk page for a wider view of contributors. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 15:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the prompt response. If you don't mind me asking, though - what does one do when the two people who have undone the edit - yourself and WikiHannibal - don't contribute to the talk-page discussion on the edit to discuss the issue? Dr John Donaldson (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Rick and Morty season covers

Hey Alex, thanks for renaming the first season's cover. If you have time, please take a look at the recent edit history and the related discussion about the second season's cover at Talk:Rick and Morty (season 2), as i am not sure how to handle this. --  Radiphus  01:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Radiphus: No problems; I actually found the rename request through the discussion. I was planning on adding to the discussion in my spare time. -- Alex^TW 01:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok great, thanks. It's time for bed for me now... 4am in Greece. Cya! --  Radiphus  01:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your name was alluded to in an ANI

In the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and personal attacks by Pyxis Solitary ANI @ 08:49, 6 July 2017:

• "I'm not sure who emailed you (I know someone is still going around badmouthing me or was very recently)".

Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Cheers for that. Typical of them; they can never provide any sort of argument that could be considered coherent, so they find themselves needing to attack other editors, among other unsanitary behaviour. It's unfortunate you've had to come across this editor. -- Alex^TW 10:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It's toxic. I know. But I should inform you. In my talk page: Drop it. Pyxis Solitary talk 13:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The Doctor Falls

Not every day I get thanked and reverted for the same edit. Got a kick out of that. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@ZarhanFastfire: Which edit was that? The common themes not being continuity? -- Alex^TW 03:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes that one. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Color of Once Upon a Time Season 6 template

Hi :) I wasn't very familiar with the guidelines and rules on Wikipedia as I'm not a frequent editor, but I read the pages that you mentioned in your latest edit on the Once Upon a Time Season 6 article, and I have a better understanding now. But, I have a few questions/comments. First of all, when was the current color of the template picked and where do I need to go to discuss the change of it? And second of all, I changed the color to match the color of the border and the spine of the Season 6 Blu-ray and DVD release, images of which were recently released online. I thought I was being helpful because this seems to be how all of the other season template colors were formatted. So, why are you so insistent on keeping the current color? Yes, I know what it is, and it doesn't match. And also, you reverted my edits and justified it by saying they were unexplained changes, but I did explain my reason for changing them in my first edit, so… what was that about? And lastly, the WP:DEW page mentions that you shouldn't revert changes that aren't intentionally unconstructive, so why did you do so? Thank you for your time :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.66.220 (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling's Wizarding World

Hey Alex, could you please move Draft:J. K. Rowling's Wizarding World to the mainspace since it is now ready. - Brojam (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Brojam:  Done Sorry for the wait, dinner time pulled me away. -- Alex^TW 07:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries, thanks! - Brojam (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hex code

Hi User:AlexTheWhovian, can you find a hex code for a recurring colour from this title card please?
File:People Just Do Nothing titlecard.jpg
For use on the pilot episode table.--Theo Mandela (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela:  #553921  or  #665136  -- Alex^TW 23:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Can you send me a couple more please? It's just too close to series 1 colour, thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

 #B1935C  from the central buildings. (Also, no need to ping me on my talk page. ) -- Alex^TW 00:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

That's great thanks, btw do you think the already there hex colours are exactly the same as the DVD ([4])?--Theo Mandela (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional TfD discussions

Here is more templates I have nominated for deletion like the others one. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 00:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: I think we should put the main template up for deletion. Doesn't seem to be any real support for it... -- Alex^TW 09:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw that too, but I wasn't sure. I'll add it later, or you can if you get the chance. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 13:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

After waiting 24 hours to revert Windows updates that seriously fucked up my computer, I was able to add the main template in the discussion. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 14:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello ATW. My last edit did take get your talk page out of the category. Since I'm not sure what it is you are wanting to do I thought I would mention that the curly brackets are mostly for templates and - as far as I can determine your user page is not one. I do apologize if this is messing up something you are trying to accomplish. I do have a couple other editors I can ask if you need that item in these {{}}. "The Doctor Falls" was chock full of callbacks to both the classic and current series. Between Capaldi's hair and outfit I kept seeing Pertwee :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Just transcluding my user icons from my main page to my talk page using the "onlyinclude" tags. Transclusion isn't solely for templates; If the template's page name does not begin with a namespace, it is assumed to be in the Template namespace. To refer to a page in the "Main" (article) namespace, it is necessary to prefix it with a colon (:). "The Doctor Falls" was an amazing end to an equally amazing series. One can only hope that Sean Pertwee will take up his father's role for a guest appearance one day. -- Alex^TW 09:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That makes sense. I agree about Sean and fingers crossed that happens. For me he is one of those who has grown more and more to look like his father as he has gotten older. Michael Douglas is another. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 15:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Female Doctor Who

Following yesterday's announcement, do you know of any criteria for refering to the Doctor as he or she when Jodie Whittaker takes over as Doctor Who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedEdwards (talk • contribs)

@TedEdwards: Talk:The Doctor (Doctor Who) § Incoming pronoun situation -- Alex^TW 12:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:Image of New Doc

Sorry, I did not mean to imply you were in any way unhappy with the casting choice or any inferences one may make from that. I meant only to imply that that image in particular is of her in character as the Doctor and not as herself.

Sorry again,

Gotha^☭  _Talk 00:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thirteen

Hey, would you be comfortable with putting the article Draft:Thirteenth Doctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in mainspace? I think it's large enough to even get a listing on DYK, but I wanted to make sure given that you're the other primary contributor. :) Sceptre (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sceptre: Apologies for the way, I completely neglected my talk page. I replied on the page. -- Alex^TW 03:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Lucifer

Just curious to know why you removed my addition, since I felt it was fairly important to understanding her character.

Cadavra8 ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadavra8 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cadavra8: It's really not necessary given its triviality, and adding small things like that opens the doorway to adding more trivial content, and then we end up with massive paragraphs of fluff. -- Alex^TW 03:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly correct about massive paragraphs, but in this case I felt it was a key part of her character and thus worth the mention. However, you're the boss. Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Cadavra8Cadavra8 (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

GM experiment move

• [5]

This should never have been done. Titles are required to follow WP:MOS, and WP:MOS requires ndashes in such instances. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It was listed under uncontroversial requests, I found it uncontroversial. If you wish to relist it and start a requested move discussion, that's up to you. -- Alex^TW 11:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

When you have such requests, you have a responsibility to least check that the rationale makes sense and is in line with community standards. Moving properly dashed titles to hyphenated titles is just plain wrong. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. If it gets relisted, I'll move it back. -- Alex^TW 11:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)