Jump to content

User talk:Rkitko/Archive16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Rollback Needed!

Can you rollback Caps lock? -72.91.241.104 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cloudberries

I disagree with your interpretation of WP:NC(flora) with respect to Rubus chamaemorus. The use of cloudberries in pies, jams, and alcoholic drinks is more notable to people familiar with the plant than its use within botany, but the article is not long enough to split its agricultural use into a separate article. NC flora appears to indicate that is those cases the article should be at the common name. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse "most commonly used name" with "vernacular name." That species has more than one vernacular name. The advice at WP:AT is sound - the scientific name is precise, unambiguous, and is more frequently used in reliable sources about that species. Rkitko (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact that there are some alternative vernacular names to the common "cloudberry" does not make the scientific name the most common. To quote NC flora, "when a plant is of interest outside botany—for example because it has agricultural, horticultural or cultural importance—then a vernacular name may be more common". The term "cloudberry" for food and drink uses is far more common than the term rubus chamaemorus in scientific literature, and I think that most people reading that article will be more interested in the cultural uses of the plant than its botanical classification. A crude Google search supports this with 419,000 hits for cloudberries and only 141,000 for rubus chamaemorus. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, crude indeed. In reliable sources, such as floras and other botanically relevant manuscripts, the scientific name is more prominent. A google scholar search comes up with more hits for the scientific name than either common name. This plant has comparatively limited usage as a food or drink product, but I think it would be ok to split. How about we compromise? If we split, I'll endeavor to improve the taxon article to at least a B-class (maybe GA?) article if you work on the food/drink product article. I think it would be fine to split it; I just don't think the taxon article should be located at either vernacular name. And I doubt you'd get much support for WP:PLANTS or the folks who wrote WP:FLORA, which I helped establish and implement. Rkitko (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the wording of the naming convention, I just think that the berry's use as a food is more notable than as a plant. Determining notability is difficult, and it may be useful to get some opinions from people who are tied to neither WP:Plants or WP:Food and drink. Citing scholarly articles is obviously going to use the scientific name more, just as cookbooks are going to produce the vernacular name more often. The same would be true of species where we already put the article on the common name. Journals are good for citing facts, but are less good at determining common names. As a long-term solution a split might be a good idea, but given that cranberry and blackberry don't split off an article for use as food, it may be premature to do so here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a great deal of work to successfully split an article. That's the likely reason your examples have not been split yet. A WP:OTHERSTUFF argument won't work here; if we think it's capable of standing as two separate articles and we want to work on improving them that way, there's nothing that should be preventing us from that. Agreed? Rkitko (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It probably could exist as two articles, but given that I have no experience in writing food and drink article, I may not personally be able to do it well. That said, I don't think my personal inability to write about the food use of cloudberries implies that their botanical use is more notable and familiar to users. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Seedpod

Hi, I thought you might like to know that I've reinstated your redirect for this page to fruit. It was a mess, just as you observed in June 2007, and I imagine that you might have been too disheartened to keep a watch on the page. Solidarity! Nadiatalent (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I hadn't put that page on my watchlist after I redirected. Thanks for taking care of that; I wholly agree with your assessment and have not watchlisted it in case it ever gets undone again ;-) Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Plants described ...

Hi Rkitko,

I wondered if you would clarify something, if you can. If you would go to this ipni page for Quercus oleoides you will find that under notes, they show "virginiana", which I'm sure means Quercus virginiana. This is a bona fide species that is widely accepted (at least I'm pretty sure it is), and there is an article on it here. What I don't really know is, if 1830 is considered to be the first year of description, or if it should be 1768, the year Q. virginiana was described. If you aren't sure, I should probably not add [[category:Plants described in ... ]] for this one. Any thoughts? Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

When I'm unsure or IPNI is vague, I usually just omit that category. However, I think you're right on this case. It seems there had been some uncertainty about the position of this species, which is why the IPNI record may say =virginiana. It's important to remember that IPNI deals only with nomenclatural synonyms (based on the same type material) and not taxonomic synonyms (based on different types). It's possible the note referred to a time when Q. oleoides was still considered a nomenclatural synonym of Q. virginiana. Regardless, I also checked the Kew checklist and the GRIN taxonomy database to verify. GRIN didn't have Q. oleoides listed, but Kew confirms the 1830 publication date. 1768 is the publication year for Q. virginiana but can't be for Q. oleoides, which only became a valid taxonomic name in 1830 when it was published by Schltdl. & Cham.. So yes, the Quercus virginiana article has the correct category and Quercus oleoides can get Category:Plants described in 1830 put on it. Rkitko (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated - just did it. Hamamelis (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Caryophyllales

I see you on my watchlist, picking up where I left off on taxobox filtering. Good for you! :-) Hesperian 02:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems I've been found out! It's a big job. Thought I'd help. Thanks again for showing me how to do that. I'll probably just work on the rest of the Caryophyllales since they're reasonably well-resolved. Do you have a list of orders yet to be done somewhere? Rkitko (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Hesperian/Notes/Taxobox cleanup Hesperian 03:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Salvia species

I'd like to clean up List of Salvia species, now that I seem to be nearing the useful limit of distinct Salvia species articles, at about 300 of the most known and used species. If you look at the list, it's apparent that someone began populating it from a comprehensive source(s), and gave up after "A". Should such a large genus have every single known species listed? Would you suggest adding the authority to each? And date? This[1] seems to be an authoritative and modern list, since it's based on Gabriel Alziar's re-organization. I don't have Alziar's work, and it's in French: Catalogue synonymique des Salvia du monde (Lamiaceae). Would you have access to an electronic version? Or another authoritative list? Or just use the University of Wisconsin list? Would there be any copyright issues with using so much of a work? Thanks! First Light (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it's been so long; I've been a bit busy at work and haven't had much time to answer your questions. I'll start by suggesting the difficult task of organizing the list article with a sortable table, such as List of Nepenthes species and List of Drosera species. It's hard work, but certainly worth it in the end. Large genera may be a bit more cumbersome, but I think it can still work if done right. When done in a table like that, then it's no problem including the authority and date. As general practice, botanical authorities do not include the year unless it's in the context of the full citation, including publication and page number. So if you opt not to do the list, while I think it's helpful to include the years, it's not standard botanical practice. Zoologists do that; and we're, of course, better than them :-) I'll cogitate on your other questions and get back to you soon. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm in no hurry (and about to get very busy in real life) so take your time. I'm interested in getting it right from the start, especially since there are over 900 species on the actual list (not the wikipedia page), so I'm happy to go slow with this. Thanks, First Light (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Photo priorities?

As far as Nepenthes are concerned, we've already got habitat photos of most species (>90 out of ~130 species by my count) and almost all of the common ones. Certain exceptional plants can only realistically be illustrated with images of cultivated specimens (such as BE's black N. truncata, which is believed to be extinct in the wild, or special forms such as the "red hairy" N. hamata), but I'm not sure if such rarities will be on show at the ICPS conference? It will certainly be good to have photos of some of the more prominent figures in the CP world, though! Perhaps a general overview shot of the whole display/sales area could be useful for illustrating the ICPS article or a section on popular interest in CPs? Anyway, enjoy your time at the conference! mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting times ahead in the CP world! Look forward to the photos and trip report. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Plant dabs

I noticed that you commented on Talk:Mulberry (plant), cautioning against inclusion of partial title matches. I'm quite familiar with the problem on general dab pages, but I haven't really kept up with Template:Plant common name standards specifically. Go ahead and remove inappropriate entries as you see fit. I already have enough frustrations endeavoring to remove unwarranted entries on general dab pages (e.g.), so I'm happy to have someone else bolstering the edit record for analogous focus. Though perhaps you're in the same boat? At least I've learned the handy, new (to me) link, WP:PTM. ENeville (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, I'm not sure how many of those are often referred to as just Mulberry. If none of them are, then the dab page is unnecessary and could be a redirect. I've been referring a lot to that particular guideline, so I decided it needed a shortcut link :-) While I have you here, what are your feelings on Category:Species Latin name disambiguation pages? I'd be inclined to delete the lot as WP:PTM, but some in the past have said their useful, disregarding the logic that anytime a species name is mentioned, it first is used in full and that these dab pages will be difficult to maintain as names change. Rkitko (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

meetup?

Hi there,

I got your name from the Wikimedia:Meetup/Ohio 1 page. I will be in Columbus Aug 8-11 and was wondering if any Wikimedians would be interested in meeting up then. If so, I started Wikipedia:Meetup/Ohio 2 for quick planning :) best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I'd love to, but I'm (for once) not in town this week. I'm attending a conference in The Netherlands :-) Good luck, though, and I hope some people want to get together with you. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing taxobox

In the edit summary of one of your recent reverts, you assert that it "makes more sense to have separate categories". In what way does it make more sense? There are so few articles marked as missing a taxobox that to divide them in any way is utterly superfluous. There are quite a lot of unmarked articles around (mostly created by a single user, as far as I can see), but I am not aware of any that would belong in a plants-specific category. On the other hand, having a simpler system of categories, with fewer levels of hierarchy to trawl through before finding articles that need to be fixed, is a definite improvement. Speaking as someone who has put quite a lot of effort in to supplying taxoboxes to those articles that are marked as needing them (which is why there are now so few), I can assure you that keeping them in fewer categories makes that task considerably easier. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would have been nice to have discussed this with those who monitor that category first. Regardless, I think it makes more sense to have them split by specialty. I'm not sure I could confidently put together a taxobox for an animal article, which is why I only pay attention to the plants category. Rkitko (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't sure I was qualified to provide taxoboxes for chromalveolates and rhizarians, but I didn't see anyone else volunteering. In practice, it's the same people who add needed taxoboxes, regardless of the kingdom. I know there have been plants in the main category, but do you know when there was last an article in the plants category? As far as I can recall, it's always been empty (although that could be simply because it gets emptied quickly). --Stemonitis (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
An empty tracking category harms no one, of course. I think it's more likely in the future for folks to focus on particular kingdoms and pay attention to these tracking categories if they're more related to what they normally write about. Also, different projects may have different agreements on what needs and what doesn't need a taxobox. For example, I have no idea if obsolete taxa among animals usually receive a taxobox; with plants, we don't. I was sure that was a more general WP:TX guideline, but it could differ from project to project. Rkitko (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Naturalized flora of Alabama

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I've posted a reply which I'm certain you will find of great interest. Btw, I just had a look at your user page... Anybody who's fascinated by carnivorous plants can't be too bad! :) Cgingold (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about changing the redirect, I didn't know it was an offical abbr.Mr.Kennedy1 talk 09:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Clementine

Per [[WP:BRD], discussion at Talk:Clementine. See you there? --Lexein (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Request explanation for page deletion

Hi Rkitiko. I noticed that you deleted the "Giant Target" page. You cited ‎"A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content" as your reason. There are references to shows that the band has played, as well as an interview with the band conducted by an external source. The band is significant because people listen to them and care about their music. This seems to fulfill the following requirement found in section A7 of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#A7 page:

"The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source"

If an actual explanation of the band's significance is required, I'd happily add "The band's significance lies mostly in their local notoriety, as well as the creativity of their lyrics and blending of musical styles." to the page once it's restored.

Can you please explain why the page was deleted, or simply restore the page?

Thank you.

Mozltovcoktail (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've re-created the page and included multiple new references, as well as an explanation of the notable aspects of the band. If you still take issue with the page, please give me a chance to improve it before deleting it.

Mozltovcoktail (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The article at the time did not provide any information (cited with reliable sources) on its notability. You've since improved a bit, but I'm not quite convinced it's a notable band. If I'm so motivated, I could take it to the AfD process and see what other editors think. By the way, I removed a few "references" - concert schedules aren't reliable sources for the information you had them citing; and another Wikipedia article is not a reference - go the primary or secondary literature. Rkitko (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem with Elm pages

Dear Rkitko Odd fault has arisen, apparently of its own volition, on some of the Elm pages. The section dividing line which appears directly under the section title now, in some instances, continues across the infobox, viz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulmus_%27Patriot%27 There are quite a few of them, so I cannot ask you to rectify them all, rather request advice how to do it myself. Regards Ptelea (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Plant Identification

Rkitko, I take your point about the guide thing. I don't know how to do Wikibooks, and there is already a book on identification of all the organisms on Earth (Good luck to them!) and a dichotomous key. I will remove it all if you want. Shame though a lot of research went into that, trying to make it user friendly and practical. If i delete stuff it will leave blank pages. How do I clear them? Let me know if you want it all deleted. Agong1 16:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested Assistance: Swimming Pool Sanitation image

Hello Rkitko, Jeff Bedford here. An edit was made to the Swimming pool sanitation article, and as I happen to have a COI with the subject matter of the article, I'd like to get your input on how to best proceed here. (Note: I noticed that you expressed an interest on this article's talk page quite awhile ago, so I thought this may be of interest to you)

  • Standing alone, this image is not a cause for concern; however its placement on the Swimming pool contaminants article significantly compromises the quality of the article. I have no problem with nudity or explicitness in an encyclopedic context, but this specific usage is simply not encyclopedic, and does not contribute anything to the article that we could not obtain from a different, less potentially controversial image.

Can you advise on how we can best remedy this situation? Kind Regards, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rkitko, thanks for your kind note on my talk page re: the Swimming pool sanitation article. I think you're right - the article is lacking in images, so instead of simply removing the existing photo, I've found two that are suitably licensed: [2] or [3]. Which one do you feel would best fit the article? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sequoia National Park

I don't believe that WP:SEEALSO guides us towards exclusive article links in a see also section. In fact, at the bottom, it says that {{Portal}} and {{Wikipedia-Books}} should go into the See Also section. Those are not in article space. Therefore the guidelines do not forbid non-article links.

I looked and looked and could find no guideline explicitly forbidding category links in see also (or, indeed, anywhere else in the article). If you can explicitly find such a guideline or policy, I will be happy to support the reversion. Otherwise, I believe it to be helpful to the article and should be restored. —hike395 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout)#See also include links to categories?. The links are pretty superfluous. A see also section on the Sequoia National Park article wouldn't, for example, normally include a list article on the flora or fauna of the large Sierra Nevada region, so there go two of the category links. Further, would any of the links in Category:Sequoiadendron be included in this article? Likely not. But if so, they should be directly linked instead of included in a category in a see also section. Rkitko (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw the discussion: I'm open to the consensus that develops -- I'd just like to understand why it's supposed to be bad, rather than the fact that it isn't common. I'd like to avoid WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
The Sierra Nevada form a relatively coherent ecoregion --- the biotic zones within it are much more strongly related to elevation, rather than location within the Sierra (see Ecology of the Sierra Nevada) Sequoia NP has a wide variety of elevations --- it should therefore have a representative sample of the flora and fauna. A list of Sierra Nevada flora and fauna would be an appropriate link to add to this article. Such a list article doesn't exist (yet), so linking to a category is helpful and informative to our readers. —hike395 (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, what I was saying above is that Sequoia National Park < Sierra Nevada region. Flora and fauna of the Sierra Nevada may not be found in the Sequoia National Park. What would be a relevant link would be a list of flora and fauna of the park itself. I wouldn't, for example, include a link to a list (or category) of the flora and fauna of New Jersey on the Pine Barrens (New Jersey) article. I can give you several reasons why linking directly to categories is not the best practice:
  • A link to a category leads the user to content that is not meant to be directly edited. A similar list article "see also" link may be appropriate where a category is not since the user is taken directly to content that has prose.
  • Categories are meant for browsing related subjects. Categories cannot include extensive explanatory prose, nor can they include links to articles that don't exist, whereas a list of flora and fauna can include information on species Wikipedia does not yet have articles for.
  • And finally, all links in the see also section are typically thought of as links not yet included in the body of the article. A "complete" article should not need this section (e.g. my FA Drosera regia does not have one). So the question asked is would you include direct links to categories in the prose of the article? I don't see anywhere that you could or should. It would also likely be considered an WP:EASTEREGG link if piped.
Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I understood your point that SNP < Sierra Nevada. Above, I was trying to explain why that isn't an important criterion for these specific links.
I think you may have a narrower idea for "see also" links than is supported by either the WP:SEEALSO guideline or in practice. Yes, the WP:SEEALSO guideline says that "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one.". We shouldn't interpret that to mean that "see also" should contain only body links that would appear in a perfect article. In fact, WP:SEEALSO goes on to say "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Of course, it also directs us to use common sense.
I think that it perfectly sensible for a person who is reading about Sequoia National Park to want to read 1) a list of Giant Sequoia trees in or near the park, 2) a list of plant species in or near the park, and 3) a list of animal species that is in or near the park. We don't have list articles about any of those. Indeed, you point out limitations of categories that I completely agree with: I find list articles to be far preferable to categories, for the exact reasons that you give. But, given that we don't have these list articles, I would rather give readers the opportunity to get information that they need in a suboptimal form than leave them with nothing.
To me, this is part of the "WP is a work in progress" philosophy: eventually, someone will create those articles. Perhaps this discussion will even prompt the creation of those articles (I'll ask Look2See1 if he/she is interested in creating them: he's quite energetic). WP:SEEALSO does not allow us to redlink to them in the "see also", unfortunately. In the meanwhile, I would like to restore the links to the categories, to give users useful information. It's not forbidden by any guidelines, and it's a useful stopgap. We should leave a note in Talk to say that we wish we had three list articles, so that future editors can remember to change them over if we get them. —hike395 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rkitko, please see my talk page heading "Requested list articles" begun by hike395 and my response to his good idea to solve this. I'll give creating a new stand-alone list article a try, I've never started an article before.
Please note I did put a link to Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada region (U.S.) — Not Category:Flora of California chaparral and woodlands or Category:Flora of the California desert regions; let alone Category:Flora of California in Sequoia National Park's "see also," even though some of their plants are in the park, as that would not be sensible, so your Category:Flora of New Jersey & Pine Barrens example above seems distant or perhaps provocative and not helpful to this issue's clarification. As hike395 said, it is the vertical distance-elevation far more than horizontal distance that determines the Sierra flora one finds. I've gone from summer through spring to winter foliage emergence in just 100 foot upgrade talus walk in 'summer' at timberline, with the same species in SNP & YNP - except for the endemics.
My cat. linking intentions are on my talk page's "Requested list articles" entry too. Please try to assume reasonably 'intelligent and natural history astute' good faith efforts on my part. Thank you—cheers—Look2See1 t a l k → 20:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Pinus sabiniana [?sabineana?] Gray Pine rename

Hi Rkitko , new section, new day, new questions. First though, I'm so sorry for all my parts in the recent edits-talkpages mess. I apologize to you especially. Last night the BBC news cycle reported of Kew's study that a fifth of the world's plant species are endangered for extinction, and suddenly what cat. tags are on an article got real silly, and I shivered about the Category:Extinct plants becoming more needed instead. And so the new day as reset-restart. If it is not too much to ask, perhaps if you could continue with a brief word in edit box if a rvt. is necessary, it helps.

Tried to seriously stay out of doing any edits when 'sensing inner doubts' today, I hope it is better. The 'issue' in title is someone's new name change request on Gray Pine article > P. sabineana. To a bot. name = yes, however it is a new [?] spelling of species, that Jepson, USDA, Calflora, etc. don't even recognize in a online searches. Is it 'brand new' and they've not updated yet? I did edit the article, primarily citations and 'new species name' as not done deal quite yet, de-capitalized common names!, and put ext. links on it all. A few 'sense inner doubts' moments, so hope nothing too egregious was committed. Also, I put vote & info-links on it's talk page, but seems it really needs the experts' review and opinions, if important enough.
Truly with sincere good will and appreciation, thank you—Look2See1 t a l k → 02:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just saw the P. sab delete, and put a few 'pipe|bot. name' in just for flora cats. Is that the right way to do it so all the Pinus get to P? Is the defaultsort [not 'mine'] wrong due to common name title? thanks----Look2See1 t a l k → 02:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
There are varied opinions on this and I'm getting ready to ask the community their feelings on using DEFAULTSORT on species articles (those titled at the species name, though). From my point of view, your second thought on this is more appropriate. Defaultsort and sortkeys are not typically used to sort a differently-titled article (Gray Pine) under something other than their actual title (say "P" for Pinus) in the category. That's why I removed them. (A little too long to write in an edit summary!) DEFAULTSORT is used in biography articles to categorize by last name and is used in general to use correct capitalization for the wiki software to sort them correctly. However, I do think that WP:FLORA (the naming convention guidelines for flora) supports moving this article to the species name, given that there are many ambiguous common names. I'm not sure about the correct species name. Could this be a case of an orthography correction? There are some knowledgeable people that could help if you post the question at WT:PLANTS (the WikiProject Plants talk page). Some of them are very good at digging down to the real name. I'm heading off to bed now, but I'll look into it tomorrow morning. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Curiosity got the best of me and I did a quick google search. We can't quite cite this forum, but maybe we can get a hold of the suggested source at this link. I used the "look inside" function at Amazon for "Pines: Drawings and descriptions of the genus Pinus" and it doesn't specifically discuss the name, but it uses sabineana. But now I'm sure it's an orthographical correction, because it was named after Sabine but named incorrectly according to the ICBN rules as sabiniana. Hope that clears it up! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rkitko/Archive16&oldid=467198842"