Talk:Everytime/Archive 1

Opening heading

The "music video" section of this article contains speculation and unconfirmed facts. Can somebody have a look and see if they agree. 220.237.21.138 11:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)acute What is the use of having a list of unofficial remixes? The list would be endless as anyone can do mixes andput them on emule and whoever finds them will consider them mixes/unofficial mixes and end up here? Dollvalley 23:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Everytime Crime.JPG

Image:Everytime Crime.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, page not moved Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime → Everytime (Britney Spears song) — Because there are some articles that has a title "Everytime". When it is already moved, I will edit the article to redirect it to Every Time ~~yeah~~ 06:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Oppose. I have contributed significantly to this article and I have thought about this move in the past. First and foremost, there are only two other songs named "Everytime": one by Simple Plan that is redirected to the album's page and another one by Butterfingers which barely has information on it. Even if there were a thousand other songs with the same name, Spears's article was created first. I believe it should be like it is now, with a hatnote linking to the disambiguation page. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the Britney song is not the primary use of the term. a dab page should exist here. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recording Year

For some reason Xwomanizerx thinks that they own Wikipedia articles concerning recording artist and stage performer, Britney Spears. I have made it clear that Cry Me A River was NOT released in December 28, 2002 as that was only a radio entry date. The single itself was issued to radio in mid-November and the video on November 25. Xwomanizer, being lazy and immature by also reverting my correction of the CMARD date is unnecessary and very unwelcome here. If you do not agree with the 2002 recording year provided for Everytime, then change that instead of undoing all the productive additions made by one user. You do not have the supreme right decide what you see fit for these articles as they are not solely based on your choices and opinions. Spears certainly was recording by December 7, 2002 and was working on more personally crafted material much prior to other recordings in throughout 2003. If you believe that, continually reverting any submission of material by me due to some underlying resentment will be excused, you will be confronted about it as no one has time for putting up with such petty behavior. Along with faqs.org, old pdf files from 2003 also the same thing on proceedings that took place on April 26, 2003 to register the copyright for Everytime, which is stated to be created in 2002, NOT 2003. If anything I will state that the song probably wasn't completed that year, but the vocals were certainly recorded by year's end.Carmaker1 (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded in your talk page, tell me what you think. Xwomanizerx (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cry Me a River

"Britney has neither confirmed or denied this allegations" is incorrect. The other writer for "Everytime" confirms that it is a response to "Cry Me a River", and Britney herself denies it, stating that she "would never do that" and that "it's not my style". It doesn't matter if she said that she "will let the song speak for itself" in another interview, she has still denied that she wrote a response track to Justin's song. It's as simple as that. It doesn't matter if she didn't specifically mention this song when she said that, she still said that she did not write a song about Justin. The MTV article also confirms that "Everytime" had been completed when she said that. Pancake (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where song was written

This article states song was written in Italy, though Spears herself claims it was written when she was in Germany, as she states in this live performance: Britney Spears Everytime (ABC Special) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillwill (talk • contribs) 11:45, 27 January 2012

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. The supports win the head count by one, but have generally used weaker arguments. This page is a de facto primary topic, and a few editors said it should not be, but none expressed evidence to back up this belief, and as a primary topic, NCM does not apply in the way supporters have used it. I was initially going to call this no consensus, but either way, the page stays. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime → Everytime (Britney Spears song) – Because as we last discussed with the result of no consensus, there are a lot of song titles "Everytime" in different artists. And the named article should be redirected to Every Time as disambiguation page. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC) ApprenticeFan ^work 10:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PRECISION, WP:AT and WP:SONGDAB --Richhoncho (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SONGDAB, as you were explained at WT:D, doesn't apply to non-dab articles, especially if they are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as in Miracle on 34th Street. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 16:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In YOUR opinion... and I thought there was a local consensus that Primary Topic doesn't generally apply to items as transiently notable as songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary Topic doesn't generally apply to items", thank you for this. "Generally" doesn't mean always. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then perhaps, instead of generally, we use your favorite, WP:IAR, OTOH I thought you said you were going to ignore me? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most mature editor in Wikipedia has spoken. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PRECISION, WP:AT and WP:SONGDAB which applies to this since there is no primary topic for the word Everytime / Every Time Everytime (Britney Spears song) v "Everytime" (Simple Plan song) v Everytime (Butterfingers song) will be fine. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Of the two other songs explicitly titled "Everytime", one of them is Everytime (Simple Plan song), which redirects, and Everytime (Butterfingers song), which I have just prodded because it doesn't indicate notability. This song charted very highly, so it is more likely that people will want to search for his song than any other song with this name.--Laun chba ller 09:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: that prod has been overwhelmingly rejected at AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There has been no indication of any lack of primary topic for this song. Who is searching for "everytime" looking for anything but this song--it doesn't seem to be very many people. Red Slash 18:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See the present title. Are you saying that this song is primary for "Everytime/Every Time" because that's what it is at the moment? Quite frankly that is ridiculous. If your argument is that it is a primary sub-topic, then you should be proposing a move to Everytime (song). --Richhoncho (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely I am saying that--for "everytime". That's not even a word in English. I did not say that I thought Every time or Every Time should redirect here. But the article surely has primary topic for this spelling. Red Slash 18:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are in favour of disambiguation by punctuation, by html code, by the written in respect of music which is an aural tradition? I don't think I've ever heard on the radio, "that was was "Everytime" which is spelt as one word" but I have heard on frequent occasions "that was song by artist." Why shouldn't WP disambiguate by common practice? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great question, Richhoncho. (No sarcasm.) WP:AT might help, with a special focus on WP:PRECISION and WP:DIFFCAPS. It doesn't really matter that this is an aural topic, this is a written encyclopedia. So yeah, that's more than sufficient for disambiguation. Red Slash 03:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Red Slash for the direction to guidelines, it made me read them again (no sarcasm intended, it is always good to check from time to time).
WP:DIFFCAPS actually says, a reader who enters one term might in fact be looking for the other; so use appropriate disambiguation techniques. This discussion is about disambiguation and the proposal is consistent with this guideline.
I repeat some of the contents of WP:AT here for clarity. Firstly the important part, in my opinion, for this discussion, is WP:CRITERIA which lists five parts under the headings (my comments follow),

Recognizability. Is "Everytime" recognizable? The answer is no, according to DIFFCAPS
Naturalness. Not really relevant as both options are natural. but in general speech we refer to song and artist together to identify.
Precision. The present title is open to interpretation, the proposed title is not.
Conciseness. The present title is open to interpretation, the proposed title is not.
Consistency. It would not be inconsistent to move to Everytime (Britney Spears song). Foo song (Foo artist) probably applies to at least a third of all song articles.

AT, although a policy and not a guideline, devolves some "powers" down to specific quidelines, which in this case means WP:NCM and more particularly WP:SONGDAB, which confirms for us that when a song (or album) title is used more than once we do NOT rely on primary topic, but disambiguate all with the same same name. Thriller (Michael Jackson album) is a pretty good recent precedent.
You have earlier relied on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to oppose this nomination, which can be read in conjunction with WP:PRECISION The first guideline uses the word "may" and both give examples where the primary topic is significantly more primary. If something is not significantly primary we run the risk of running foul of WP:OR and WP:OPINION. Both, I note, are part of WP:5PILLARS and should not discarded lightly. WP:AT also confirms this.
Although those opposing this nomination have tried to delete the other two songs, at least one will survive and the other will probably be redirected. In which case WP:DAB would still apply, (A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.)
All the relevant policies and guidelines support the nomination. I cannot see any reason to oppose the nomination. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Slash. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per IIO. There is no monopoly on "every time". -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I decided to rename the title to Everytime (song), since the other two song articles have the same title of the song name don't meet the requirements of WP:NMUSIC. Richhoncho is right and will get a vote of a newly proposed article. Since "Everytime" is not a common term and not totally a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Britney Spears song. If there is a chance of many oppose votes, I will decide to withdraw the move request and will get another new one. ApprenticeFan ^work 10:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ApprenticeFan. There is nothing wrong with your nomination. Let it run. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Per WP:NCM / WP:SONGDAB. Also, I generally believe that the names of artists should be included in the titles of articles about their songs and albums. That makes the titles more clear and recognizable, and avoids future maintenance headaches over whether to consider some particular song or album as primary. Including the name of the artist is helpful to readers, the popularity of music is volatile, and new releases often appear with the same names (or strings of lyrics that might be mistaken for a name). Moreover, in this case, the ambiguous title has several other meanings and is also a homonym for Every Time, which has additional other meanings. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see no challenge to this song's status as the primary topic for the term "Everytime". Everytime "Britney Spears" returns 1060 Google Books hits, compared to 50 for Everytime Butterfingers "hip hop", few if any of which are relevant. The Butterfingers song is the only other "Everytime" with an article or anything approaching coverage on Wikipedia; subjects called "Every Time" are already adequately distinguished per WP:DIFFCAPS.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another view

Given the length of the list at Every Time and the existence of Everytime (Butterfingers song), I cannot see any justification for having this article hog the Everytime title. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it; as this has already been the subject of two RM discussions, it shouldn't be moved again without letting the community weigh in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Everytime

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Everytime's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "best":

From ...Baby One More Time (song): Trust, Gary (2012-06-05). "Ask Billboard: What Are Britney Spears' Best-Selling Singles?". Billboard. Nielsen Company. Archived from the original on 2013-09-26. Retrieved 2012-06-06. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
From Stronger (Britney Spears song): Trust, Gary (2012-06-05). "Ask Billboard: What Are Britney Spears' Best-Selling Singles?". Billboard. Nielsen Company. Retrieved 2012-06-06.
From From the Bottom of My Broken Heart: Trust, Gary (June 5, 2012). "Ask Billboard: What Are Britney Spears' Best-Selling Singles?". Billboard. Nielsen Company. Retrieved June 6, 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Despite the majority in support, Cúchullain is the only participant who has made a cohesive primary topic argument and it has not been rebutted. WP:NCM does not suggest in any way that music-related articles cannot be primary topics. Jenks24 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime → Everytime (Britney Spears song) – "Everytime" (one word) is a common version of "every time" (two words) and is not unique to Spears's song. In addition, there are numerous other songs with the one-word "Everytime" title including at least three with articles (see Every Time dab page). The previous RM was closed as "no consensus" due to lack of activity. 68.119.207.111 (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Per the dab page at Every Time, there are many alternative topics for the term, either with the space or without it, and this song doesn't seem exceptionally historically notable. Per WP:NCM / WP:SONGDAB, this should be disambiguated. Also, I generally believe that the names of artists should be included in the titles of articles about their songs and albums. That makes the titles more clear and recognizable, and avoids future maintenance headaches over whether to consider some particular song or album as primary. Including the name of the artist is helpful to readers, the popularity of music is volatile, and new releases often appear with the same names (or strings of lyrics that might be mistaken for a name). Moreover, in this case, the ambiguous title has several other meanings and is also a homonym for Every Time, which has additional other meanings. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Basically, these RMs are becoming a "we won't desist until it is moved". Nothing has changed since the 2010 and 2013 RMs, and considering that in almost 6 years no problem has existed for readers, there is no real reason to move the page. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 08:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per BarrelProof -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - as per majority to move in last RM. Dozens of other subjects on this dab list (even without the second giant dab list at Every Time), and per WP:NCM it should have the artist anyway. We need to get beyond this idea that it's a mark of shame for a song by Britney Madonna Gaga etc to be labelled (Britney Spears song) etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support since we're including irrelevant strength signifiers; per arguments above; ambiguity is not a good thing. Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose. Nothing wrong with having a primary topic, per our guidelines on such. Also per Tbhotch, nothing has changed since the previous RMs, so why change the outcome? Calidum T|C 04:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome last time was that majority support didn't result in a move. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. per Barrelproof. Yes, there are guidelines and they are at WP:NCM. This particular song is never going to have "long-term significance" as required by WP:PTOPIC --Richhoncho (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NCM. There are only three articles titled "Everytime" spelled this way, and this one is the clear primary topic. Everytime "Britney Spears" returns 1070 Google Books hits compared to 166 for Everytime Butterfingers "hip hop" (the only way I was able to get any relevant hits for the Butterfingers song) and 105 for Everytime "Tatyana Ali". The Britney song also easily dominates in page views, receiving [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Everytime 14,130 in 90 days compared to only 170 for the Butterfingers song and 163 for the Tatyana Ali song. Songs called "Every Time" are already distinguished by WP:SMALLDETAILS.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

User:Jenks24 this should probably go to move review. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: OK, that's your call to make. I stand by my decision here. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Everytime. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.ifpi.gr/chart03.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Everytime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Everytime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Everytime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Everytime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

Britney Spears said in her booklet that comes with the CD for "The Singles Collection" that "Everytime" debuted on May 22, 2004. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yc-q2J6ffXo/Vbg-HCk30VI/AAAAAAAAVcg/_RkXvU9sTqk/s1600/Imagen%2B%25288%2529.jpg DatBoy101 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]