User talk:MglovesfunBot

You'll probably get a much quicker reply by using User talk:Renard Migrant

Please see Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2010-04/User:MglovesfunBot for bot status. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you want to do DRB stuff, read Help:Language inflection bot, which should explain everything --Rising Sun talk? contributions 13:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's not a priority for me, unless you're thinking of quitting. And it sounds a bit like you are. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

We can always have both of us running identical bots. At the moment I'm creating thousands of form-ofs whose infinitive forms don't exist on en.wikt yet. But it'll take all my life to do that. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, since I have zero bot experience, I don't want to "rush in" and create a load of nonsense. But hopefully, it will happen. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Uhh... the bot in this edit did not remove the clothing context label. --EncycloPetey 03:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

True, it (well, I) just added {{context}} so that when {{clothing}} gets deleted, the entries stays the same. MglovesfunBot 09:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Glovesbot. Can I hire you for a simple replace job - I need to get rid of all the hyphenation sections in this cleanup list, which were erroneously added by DRB. Is this within Glovesbot's scope? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think I near to be clearer on what the bot is. With a couple of exceptions it's semi-automated rather than fully, but yeah, I could do this. I don't promise to do them today, but I will. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks mate. Although it seems a little strange that I feed your bot and you feed my bot. Reminds me of a weird cartoon I watched once. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm assuming you want the correct hyphenation, rather than just removing the template? So where do I get that? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

No idea. I don't understand Portuguese hyphenation. Apparently User:Daniel. might know --Rising Sun talk? contributions 13:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Obviously you've been blocked and can't now reply - I'll just remove the hyphenations, it should be a (very) easy find and replace exercise. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed some bot edits you made, like this one. Many of these are incorrectly done, since Latin does not have a "past", but rather has a perfect and an imperfect tense. Latin also has an active and a passive, and these are important to distinguish. Most instances of "pp." in an etymology section referring to Latin should actually read "perfect passive participle", not "past participle". The phrase "past participle" is not really meaningful when discussing Latin. --EncycloPetey 16:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh I totally agree, hence why abbreviations like p.p. should be used at all. I can probably find them in the bot's history and change them by hand, but if you have a list to hand, I will tackle them directly. MglovesfunBot 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Are you interested in replacing these tenths references by my new {{R:TheFreeDictionary}}? JackPotte 12:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem, yes I will. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

And I've forgotten until now. Sorry. Have now reminded myself. MglovesfunBot 17:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

These are all so randomly formatted that they need doing by hand. In some cases the reference isn't a true reference, and needs removing. So I'll either do it by hand (as a 'human editor') or not at all. Sorry. MglovesfunBot 11:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved to User talk:Mglovesfun#sv-noun.

If you're going to introduce sv-noun, you have lots of work ahead of you, for no apparent value. I have avoided this template because it seems unnecessary and quite primitive. --LA2 14:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think something has gone wrong on your bot run from 1. March. See e.g. gato, where the feminine and plural forms disappeared from the inflection line after replacing {{es-noun-mf}} with {{es-noun}}. Matthias Buchmeier _es-noun" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">13:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Note that also plurals got lost/wrong, as e.g. in entry vendedor. Matthias Buchmeier 13:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Kinda. {{es-noun}} isn't designed to handle more than just a singular and a plural; this can be easily fixed without sacrificing any information, and should be even if the other three template pass RFD as there's no reason not to improve other existing templates. See template talk:pt-noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

So for now it's IMHO better to keep the old {{es-noun-mf}} until {{es-noun}} is able to handle the m/f features.Matthias Buchmeier 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sure, why not. I'll try and have {{es-noun}} fully functional by tomorrow evening. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why?​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It just seem weird to have unbulleted stuff under headers; we do the same for reference templates, also {{list}} and {{IPA}}, {{SAMPA}}, etc. So in a single word, consistency. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

But the usual practice (as discusses recently in the BP IIRC) is that usage notes only get a bullet point of there's more than one of them under the same header.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, seeCites doesn't go under usage notes, does it? Am I missing something? --MglovesfunBot 11:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I meant that it's not weird to have unbulleted stuff under headers. Yes, we reference templates and IPA are bulleted, but OTOH usage notes are not. AFAIK seeCites isn't generally either (until you started); perhaps I'm wrong?​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I personally add bullet points to usage notes, but not (as you rightly point out) to etymologies, though some etymologies do use bullet points. In WT:BOT, I was thinking of "I will make sure that the task is so innocuous that no one could possibly object." In any event, ideally it should be all or nothing - all bullet points, or none at all, except when used directly under a definition where I used #* (that is, the hide quote mechanism)

Unrelatedly, whenever anyone leaves a message on this talk page (including me) it stops the bot which is quite annoying - though of course, not a reason not to post valid material. But it's also why I prefer messages on User talk:Mglovesfun. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

[1] --Yair rand 10:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Already mentioned it User:MglovesfunBot/errata. Thing was, I thought I'd found and fixed them all. My problem is, AWB is so small that I often can't read my own typing! And AFAICT with all the 'options' there are, there isn't one to make the text bigger. --MglovesfunBot 11:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

My method of fixing them was off, I converted {{in the plurallang to {{in the plural|lang but some of them don't use lang directly after in the plural. I've fixed some from Special:WantedTemplates. WT:Todo/stray template calls picks up only the ones used in NS:0, so we'll have to nudge Nadando over it. --MglovesfunBot 12:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

"One parenthesis too much: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=syntagma&curid=288200&diff=13269069&oldid=13188271" and " "you (with and/or w/o your bot ;-) ) think that sh = sr ∪ hr ∪ bs ?" and/or "was this decided on a greater level?" ?" :-) Best regards, --Biblbroks 23:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Annoyingly, I think that's a typo rather than an actual 'miscalculation'. Can easily be fixed, thanks. MglovesfunBot 23:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yep I did

\{\{ttbc\|(bs|hr|sr|Bosnian|Serbian|Croatian)(\||\})

to

{{ttbc|sh}}

and it should be

{{ttbc|sh$1

. MglovesfunBot 23:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=alexia&curid=72782&diff=13430334&oldid=13148288 --BiblbroX дискашн 22:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, see User talk:Mglovesfun#Some problems with your bot. MglovesfunBot 10:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my taste for such techiness is too indelicate... for now. --BiblbroX дискашн 21:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

dummy edit :) --BiblbroX дискашн 23:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

You started Category:en:Domestic cats are you going to put the rest of the cat definitions in there? WritersCramp 23:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes. MglovesfunBot 01:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be some problem with entries, which have the plural-parameter wiki-linked, as hombre de negocios. Could you check the bot-logs to see if there are more such entries? Matthias Buchmeier 09:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well they shouldn't be wikilinked at all, of course. What we actually need is to find all the broken ones, this would require looking at a 'dump' not a bot log. Alternatively, it is possible to find which entries using double square brackets using {{isValidPageName}}. --MglovesfunBot 09:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Did you intend to clean up the duplicate Tagalog entries? See Category:Entries with translation table format problems. DCDuring TALK 20:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The bot added {{rfc-auto}} so that KassadBot would sort them alphabetically and tag any problems. 97 is quite a lot to do by hand; still it's really a manual job rather than automated to merge such translations. Best solution is for me to do it using AWB to speed it up. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm used to manually cleaning up that category, but almost always the members are manually created so there are typically fewer than a half dozen in a day. I also believe that what is caused by a bot needs to addressed by the bot designer so that any improvement opportunities are not lost. As I am basically monolingual, I am also reluctant to get involved in anything involving multiple entries in languages other than English. DCDuring TALK 23:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

So you agree with me. --Mglovesfun (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I certainly don't object. I don't want to do it. But I'm in no position to assess the best means of doing it. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see that you are replacing {{infl|fi|adjective}} templates with {{head|fi|adjective}}. The last time there was a discussion about which template to use, it ended up with a consensus of using {{fi-adj}}. Have I missed something? --Hekaheka _head" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">17:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bot's just replacing the string {{infl| with {{head|. It's not doing anything else, apart from 'minor spacing'. fi-adj is fine, but it's a separate replacement. If that's a request, then the answer's yes - is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It would be nice if a bot could do that. One must note that {{fi-adj}} produces comparatives and superlatives differently and there are several ways to do it. Using (deprecated template usage) punainen as example (nominative comes from PAGENAME):

{{fi-adj|punais|empi|in}}

{{fi-adj||punaisempi|punaisin}}

{{fi-adj||comp=punaisempi|sup=punaisin}}

{{fi-adj|punais|comp=empi|sup=in}}

I'm not aware of any preference order between them. Probably the second and third are the easiest from the point of view of writing the bot. When typing, I prefer #1 because it's the shortest. --Hekaheka 20:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bot can't really add comparatives and superlatives, though it is possible, but not always, to get the comparatives and superlatives from {{infl}} templates. Replacing {{infl|fi|adjective}} with {{fi-adj}} is as easy as it gets, it's just a straight swap, it's when you have {{infl|fi|adjective|something here|something here}} that it gets complicated, as the parameters inside infl are not in any particular order. MglovesfunBot 22:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've done the basic swaps for all the Finnish entries apart from all of the Finnish nouns, as AWB only does lists up yo 25 000 entries, and Category:Finnish nouns has way more than that. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Category:English idiomatics, Category:Finnish idiomatics and other created by MglovesfunBot. Maro 22:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah it converts {{idiom}} to {{idiomatic}} but by extension {{head|en|idiom}} becomes {{head|en|idiomatic}}. The real solution is to not use {{head|en|idiom}} as it's not usually considered valid anyway. However in bot terms, it's easily reversible. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's kinda tempting just to fix the entries instead though, though it will take longer. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why do you consider Idiom as "nonstandard" and why do you remove pages from categories "Idioms"? Idiom IS a standard POS header. Now, a user who will be looking for idioms, e.g. in Category:Finnish idioms, won't find them because you deleted them. Maro 19:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Idiom isn't a part of speech, we don't have headers like ===Simile=== for example. They entries should be categorized using {{idiomatic}} not {{head||idiom}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

In any event, phrase is a valid header. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, idiom isn't a part of speach, but is a valid header, as I mentioned above. I meant that you change the header, but you didn't add {{idiomatic}} or a category, so consequently, you removed a pages from category:Idioms. The header phrase is ok, but the category:xx:Idioms is correct as well. Maro 19:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

At the risk of thinking out loud even more, why do we have Idiom, Phrase and Proverb headers, shouldn't they all be phrase? Are idioms and proverbs not phrases? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

They are. And what about "nouns" which are actually a phrase? For example: operační systém and vzdušné zámky. The first one is a noun and the second is a noun + idiom. But these two are phrases and I think there should be one header "Phrase" for such groups of words. Maro 19:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

It would seem reasonable to bring this up on the Beer Parlour, just there's so much going on there right now, I'd prefer to wait for a quieter moment. Some might argue that there's no harm in using Idiom and Phrase as separate headers with no real justification other than personal preference. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Mglovesfun, you didn't upgrade your bot's source code and it is messing up again. Maro (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're right; I checked them by hand and seemingly missed one, I have now updated the code using User:Mglovesfun/vector.js, where I've had the relevant code for more than year. MglovesfunBot (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I get it now, the bot was looking to change {{infl|pl|idiomatic}} back to {{infl|pl|idiom}}, but the page uses {{head}} not idiom, so I've updated the code to look for head not infl. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please note that in edits like this one, you are losing important information by eliminating the alternative display text. Latin os and ōs are two different words. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are correct; I set the bot to skip anything containing ==Latin== for this reason. MglovesfunBot (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Though on reflection, that's just one way of doing it; the other is to convert [[os#Latin|ōs]] to os|ōs. MglovesfunBot (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

This edit shows some strangeness that probably needs addressing, only I'm not sure how. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Darn, it looks like a straight typo, not sure how I missd that. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

See Category:Entries_with_translation_table_format_problems. DCDuring TALK 21:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's expected behavior, see User talk:Liliana-60. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The idea is to get it all done in one go. While that might also generate 200 entries needing attention, that actually isn't that much, in many cases individual entries can be fixed in a few seconds so 200 entries might only be one day's work for one person. MglovesfunBot (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I cleaned a bunch up, but wish I hadn't because I forgot about the split between Latin and Cyrillic for some of those that had both. DCDuring TALK 22:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

A lot of our translations tables are way less than perfect, but in terms of usability, I'd imagine most users don't care about the difference between [[chose]] and {{t|fr|chose}}. Anyway, closer to 500 to format rather than 200, still not that bad, most of the time you just have to remove the first translation as it's the same as the one below. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've cleaned some too. If possible, please use the nesting, even if it's just Roman letters (or just Cyrillic). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

• It may be expected behavior, but it is impossible to use the category for any cleanup other than this matter as long as nearly 1200 items occupy it. If AWB created this mess, can't it clean up after itself? DCDuring TALK 12:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Not really no. Not by me anyway, if someone else wants to do it, fine. And as far as I understand you, you're saying the category cannot be used for anything other than its intended purpose. Curiously, that doesn't bother me a lot. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

  I suppose you also think it's difficult to use Category:Swedish nouns lacking gender for anything other than Swedish nouns lacking gender. I mean, you'd be right, but so what? What's your point. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • I'm just asking you to clean up after yourself. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • Indeed, could've just said that from the start. Though, that is what I'm already doing. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not that this diff is a bad edit, but the edit summary is incorrect. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Bugger, yes, the bot was supposed to stop when it found a match, but I forgot to uncheck the 'Auto save' button. The actual edit is to convert ** Mandarin to *: Mandarin in translation sections, as currently, we use a mix of ** and *: (KassadBot already changes :* to *: so that one's sorted). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

You don't need to be doing this; I'm already doing all the clear-cut cases in my current translations-bot pass. —Ruakh_TALK 12:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, I shall move on to {{l}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

That is, much later or tomorrow. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure exactly what happened in creamy?diff=18585090&oldid=17790709, but you need to fix it. :-/   —Ruakh_TALK 22:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, User:MglovesfunBot/errata, I forgot to uncheck the regex box. Whatever {{trreq|zh}} to {{trreq|cmn}} using regex, not plain text replacement gives, this is it. Am looking for something I can search for to find all such entries, any ideas? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

As of the last database-dump, all occurrences of {{trreq|cmn}} on the entire project were on lines taking one of the following forms:

*: {{trreq|cmn}}
* {{trreq|cmn}}:
* {{trreq|cmn}}

so you should be able to just AutoWikiBrowse through Category:Translation requests (Mandarin) and fix any instances of {{trreq|cmn}} that aren't on lines taking one of those forms. (O.K., so it's a bit more complicated than that, in that there are some cases where it needs to become {{trreq and some where it needs to become zh}}, but I'm sure you can manage it.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I seem to have fixed the problem. Unless there's another sort of broken syntax I haven't found yet. MglovesfunBot (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Look! At talking robot! --WikiTiki89 10:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Because of AutoWikiBrowser, the bot stops entirely after a message on this talk page, and to restart it, I have to read the page as MglovesfunBot. More than that, I've found I often need to edit the page for it to allow me to continue to edit. Seriously, could someone contact me if any other bad syntax is found. MglovesfunBot (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

diff diff diff --Z 20:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's irritating because I suppose it matches the regex ==([\ -9\;-\\\^-z\}-ퟻ]+)==. But I anticipated this and they will get picked up by Special:WantedTemplates. So it's not foolproof but it's going to be a tiny proportion. MglovesfunBot (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well it's now Category:Pages with script errors. It would've been Special:WantedTemplates before that. MglovesfunBot (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

You can change it to (?<!=)==([\ -9\;-\\\^-z\}-ퟻ]+)==(?!=) to fix it, I prefer something like ==\s*?([^=]+?)\s*?==[\r\n] though. --Z 20:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done as requested. MglovesfunBot (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hasn't worked; am now skipping all pages contains 'Etymology 2' instead. MglovesfunBot (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

What about ur"(?<!\=)==([\ -9\;-\\\^-z\}-ퟻ]+)==(?!\=)"? --Z 15:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Who is operating this bot? Its owner, User:Mglovesfun, seems to have abandoned the project. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think 'seems to' are the operative words. Look at the top of this page, there's a big hint. MglovesfunBot (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

This bot should most certainly not be substituting {{Q}} with {{qualifier}} (like it did in this edit) — {{Q}} (uppercase) is a quotations template; {{q}} (lowercase) is the redirect to {{qualifier}}. The substitution needs to be case-sensitive. @Renard Migrant. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please also see WT:Grease pit/2016/February#Template:a. Benwing2 (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: IFYPFY. I'm not really concerned with bot changes that only have an effect on wikitext. Changing {{Q}} to {{qualifier}} drastically alters the display of entries (as well as their functionality). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I used AWB to compare the list of pages that used {{Q}} as of the 2016-01-11 database dump to the list of pages that use it now, and found only three entries which had been changed: in, tres, and passer. It's known that due to how the dumps are created, they aren't exactly up to date, which is presumably why εἰσαγωγή (created only a few days before the dump) wasn't in the dump. However, this suggests that the number of entries affected, unless the bot is making further changes, is small. - -sche (discuss) 05:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@-sche: AFAICT, bots make their way through entries in Unicode order. Since most Latin precedes both monotonic and polytonic Greek, I suspect that εἰσαγωγή (eisagōgḗ) might well have been the tip of the iceberg… — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It depends ... if the bot iterates through references to a given template, the order might appear to be more or less random, depending probably on when the entries were created. However, I don't know how AWB does things; it might in fact sort things before running through them. I did notice this bot's changes to Russian entries appeared to be in alphabetical order. Benwing2 (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I apologize although I had no way of knowing about {{Q}}'s existence. With transcliusions by the way, the AWB seems to go through them based on date of creation, not alphabetical, although it is possible to alphabetize if you want to. MglovesfunBot (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

No worries; thanks for fixing the problem. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply