User talk:Redom115

Welcome!

Hello, Redom115, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦 06:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't spam requests, please

Please don't spam edit requests like you did on Talk:Daniel Radcliffe. It's annoying and takes time away from editors that could be attending to non-spam requests. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 21:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:MorbidEntree, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic medals

You are correct about the USA's medals, but standard practice at medal table articles is to not include bronze medals until all medals in that event have been awarded. As a result, the USA's boxing bronze should not be included until after the final match in that event. Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Albert Einstein. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr. K. 02:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Reddit, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ChamithN (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Reddit. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ChamithN (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify this further as most of your edits seem constructive, and I believe you are actually trying to help the project. While it's probably true that reddit is the "largest social news network" and Facebook Messenger is the "biggest active user base", you shouldn't just post that on Wikipedia unless you have reliable sources explicitly saying that. For example, when I asked you to cite a source, you provided a link to an Alexa ranking as to claim that's reliable enough to support the claim. But, to a general reader trying to verify the content, that would make no sense. It would only cause further confusion as it could be questioned whether the site with "19th" global rank is "the biggest social news network"; couldn't there be another one at 10 or something? That is precisely why we shouldn't synthesize sources to reach a conclusion when adding content to Wikipedia. So, I hope you understand why I reverted your edits across multiple article. Feel free to ask on my talk page if you have any questions. Cheers! -- ChamithN (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Your recent editing history at President of the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Redom115 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: ). Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are making contentious changes on several articles and this is not working in your favor. Use the talk page when someone reverts you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POTUS Most Powerful Person in the World

The POTUS is the most powerful political figure in the world as evidence by business insider and many other sources. Also if we all are to follow the sources then how come in the general secretary of China, there is only one link and that information is viable and yet for the POTUS it is not. There are some double standards here.

April 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Redom115 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

From the information I gathered over the internet, the changes I made I believe were credible. I believe that the block was incorrect because I did not provide false information, furthermore I provided evidence for my edits. I understand there could be some to debate as what I edited but there is a general consensus to the edits that I made are true. The links that were also already provided also supported the changes that I made. This is my evidence for the POTUS page and the reason for my changes. Thank you. ^[1]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not the contents of your edits. You'll have to address that, and nothing else, in any future unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were blocked again for returning to the subject for which you were previously blocked to edit-war on release of the first block. You may not edit-war, sources or no sources - you must obtain consensus for your edits. If this happens again the next block will be much longer. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ {{cite web|url=https://www.businessinsider.com.au/donald-trump-is-the-most-powerful-man-in-the-world-2016-11?r=US&IR=T%7Ctitle=Donald Trump is the most powerful man in the world|publisher=businessinsider.com|accessdate=April 22, 2017

You are invited to WikiProject YouTube

Hello! I, Jamesjpk (talk), would like to invite you to join WikiProject YouTube! We're working on:

Writing, cleaning up, and expanding articles about YouTube, in particular, these articles

Putting {{WikiProject YouTube}} on the talk pages of articles involving YouTube, and assessing articles with the template. This helps to categorize articles!

Sourcing BLP's affiliated with YouTube

Updating the project page, and spreading word about the project

and more!

It seems you might be interested, so please stop by! Thank you.

You were given this message because of your involvement in the YouTube article.

May 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Angela Merkel.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You have been warned, and in fact blocked, several times for your disruptive behaviour. Now it's time to stop and to obtain consensus for any proposed changes. Your edit history tells me that you are clearly not familiar with Wikipedia's editorial process, and I urge you to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia before continuing disruptive edit warring. Note that competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Tataral (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useful templates/tags

Here are a couple of useful templates/tags that it's normal to use. They are preferable in many instances to immediately deleting material, which can give the impression that an editor is trying to push a particular point of view.

Template:Citation needed. If a source has not yet been provided.
Template:Dubious. If a source has been provided, but the information presented may, nevertheless, be wrong.

I hope that they will be useful. EddieHugh (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Hello, I'm JohnBlackburne. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gross domestic product without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United States

Your recent edits replace longtime consensus in WP articles (and not just "United States"). Regarding aggregate U.S. wealth, you are conflating total wealth of a country with the concentrated wealth owned by individuals. In summary, you continue your history of intrusive POV edits (many of which introduce hackneyed expressions and clichés such as "flora and fauna"). I have alerted a WP administrator. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I say in the block log, this is simply too much edit warring, against too many other people, after too many warnings to stop, and two previous edit warring blocks. A block that expires in, say, a week or two just means you'd start back up again when it expired. You'll need to submit an unblock request that indicates you actually understand what edit warring is, that you aren't supposed to do it, and that you do not plan to do it anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Redom115 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have given evidence to support my points and the people that have reverted my edits have not provided me with any evidence to counter what I editedRedom115 (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not relevant to your block. You are blocked for edit-warring and have not addressed this, so there are no grounds to consider lifting your block. Yamla (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I can 100% guarantee that you will never be unblocked if you don't stop talking about how your edit was right, and start addressing the fact that you were edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, I would just like the people who say I am wrong to provide me with evidence. That's all ((unsigned|Redom115}}

That's what talk pages are for. When reverted, you discuss before your content gets added. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss, all the people who argued just hurled insults at me without any logic or evidence so I complained, I was also wondering; these edit restriction that says indefinite is there roughly a time-span you could tell me if it will be lifted.

The block will remain in place until you convince us you won't ever engage in edit-warring again. So far, all you've been doing is justifying your actions and showing we need to leave the block in place. --Yamla (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, no I meant it in a reassuring tone. If it came out wrong then I am truly sorry for the misunderstanding and I apologise for my mistake. I truly hope that clarifies all the misunderstandings. Thank you.

August 31st 2017

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Redom115 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I truly understand the gravity of my mistakes in my edit warring. I realise now that there should be more discussion in order to reach a common consensus for edits and that every diplomatic avenue should be pursued in a very cooperative. I very sorry that if my edit warring caused disinformation, I assure that it was never my intention. Thank you. Redom115 (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but despite multiple attempts to explain the problem to you I still don't think you fully understand it. For the purposes of this block it doesn't matter whether or not your edits introduced disinformation or not. Even when your edits are perfectly correct, edit warring is still not appropriate. Edit warring is disruptive in its own right, independent of the content being warred over. Huon (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The reviewing admin might want to consider a WP:1RR restriction as a condition for unblocking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious if any administrator had seen my request. I hope I didn't write the request wrong.

FYI, using the unblock template will create an entry in the list of open unblock requests at CAT:RFU. Blackmane (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 8th 2017

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Redom115 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I fully understand that edit warring is completely illegal and inappropriate and wrong. I fully understand the gravity of my actions and for that I am truly sorry. I promise that it will never happen again with me. Thank you.

Accept reason:

Per the conversation below, you are unblocked under the condition that you abide by a 1 revert restriction. You may not revert any edit on any given article more than once in any 24 hour period. Failure to abide by this restriction may result in an immediate indefinite block, without warning. You may appeal this restriction at the Administrators' noticeboard no sooner than six months from now. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If unblocked, would you be wiling to abide by a 1RR restriction as suggested above? This would mean that you would only be allowed to make one revert on an article in any 24 hour period. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would, I just have one question, this rule is it like forever or if for example I stopped edit warring for a long time, I could edit normally?

Any such restriction could be appealed after a given period, say six months. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious as to how can I exactly find the period?

Like I said, six months. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so is it six months for me because I just thought the six months was just an example.

I am willing to unblock you on the condition that you are subject to a 1RR restriction, which could be appealed at WP:AN after six months (note that the restriction would not expire after six months, and that an appeal might not be successful). If you're amenable to this, let me know and I will lift the block. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would gladly accept, just one last question if the appeal is not successful, I could try again

I must confess to being a little concerned that you are so keen to figure out how quickly you can get out of this restriction... the usual process if an appeal against a restriction is declined is that the clock is reset. Thus if you appealed in April and the appeal was declined, you would be able to appeal again in October. However, since you have already agreed that edit-warring is wrong and that you won't do it again, this should be moot, as you won't need to be exempted from 1RR for regular editing... right? Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I was just wanted to know that if I could fully be trusted again by the community.

Ah, fair enough then. Block's gone, see the unblock message above for the conditions. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering, can I still edit normally, not reverting or is that just once every 24 hours?

You can make edits as normal. However, you are not allowed to undo another editor's changes on an article more than once in a 24 hour period. This applies to manually changing the text as well as using the Undo or Rollback functions. I should add that if you simply wait 24 hours and then make a second revert, we are liable to regard that as gaming the system. The purpose of this restriction is to get you to discuss changes you disagree with, rather than simply changing the article back to your preferred version. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So say for example I reverted edit on one article, could I revert edit on another article without waiting 24 hours or is just one revert, one article.

This is all answered in WP:1RR. --Yamla (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the exact wording, from the policy (amended for 1RR):

An editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert... A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.

In theory, there is nothing in the letter of the policy to stop you from reverting at Article A, and then at Article B, and then at Article C and so on, although administrators are likely to take a dim view of such behaviour. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts on List of countries and dependencies by area

I don't follow exactly what you are trying to do here on the the List of countries and dependencies by area article, but I have a strong suspicion that you have already breached your agreement regarding reverts in the above section.

Please just stop editing when your edits are being reverted and challenged and discuss. Game-playing with repeated reverts, then self-reverts, is disruptive and certainly not in the spirit of what you agreed previously. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, there's only one revert on List of countries and dependencies by area, but given that and that similar activity at United States I am already starting to wonder whether I've been over-generous here. Redom115, be aware that the 1RR restriction is an upper limit on the number of reverts you can make, not a quota that you have to fill. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello User:Redom115. Judging from your recent edits at United States about it being the world's foremost economic power it appears you have broken your WP:1RR restriction. (You added the word 'economy' or the phrase 'economic power' seven times beginning at 16:00 on 15 September). All of your changes have been undone by User:John or User:Mason.Jones, but they are not under a 1RR themselves. If your edits are in fact a 1RR violation it would be logical for an admin to reinstate the indefinite block that was removed on condition of your good behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block reinstated

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating the 1RR restriction to which you previously agreed as part of your last unblock. Your recent edits on United States included multiple reversions to reinstate the claim that the US is the world's foremost economic power. Three of these reverts ([1], [2], [3]) occurred within the same 24 hour period. I have therefore reinstated your indefinite block for edit-warring.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Redom115 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am terribly sorry for my violation of the rule. I just thought that by revert, it was like if I went to history and I actually pressed undo on the edit, then that would count as revert. I thought that if I edited manually it wouldn't be counted on as a revert. I am truly sorry for my misunderstanding. I realise that my actions for completely wrong and to not do it again. I understand now that if there is even a sense of an argument over edits, its best that I immediately go to the talk page rather then continue to edit. I sincerely hope that my actions can be forgiven. Thank you. Redom115 (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but no. It is not possible that this is what you understood as a revert. You were pointed to WP:1RR. And in fact, Yunshui specifically linked to the exact wording. And then when you started violating this, you were warned and continued. This after a history of engaging in edit-warring. I don't believe there was a misunderstanding here. Perhaps in six months, we'd consider unblocking you under the condition that you don't ever revert anything, ever. But I think even that is asking a lot. Yamla (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

[1] {{cite web|url=https://www.businessinsider.com.au/donald-trump-is-the-most-powerful-man-in-the-world-2016-11?r=US&IR=T%7Ctitle=Donald Trump is the most powerful man in the world|publisher=businessinsider.com|accessdate=April 22, 2017

[1]