Miscellaneous desk
< May 23	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 24

how come england gets to enter 4 different teams in the world cup, when every other country only gets 1? that gives england an unfair advantage of winning

how come england gets to enter 4 different teams in the world cup, when every other country only gets 1? that gives england an unfair advantage of winning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.146.34.58 (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't, England sends only one team - the England national football team. Nanonic (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the UK has separate teams for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Only England has a realistic chance of winning the World Cup so spreading the UK players decreases the chance of winning. History of association football#First International was Scotland vs England, and the International Football Association Board is older than FIFA. The UK wanted to keep their separate teams and I don't think FIFA objected to that. There is a Great Britain Olympic football team since the UK only has one team at the Olympic Games. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the Great Britain Olympic football team only rarely competes, since getting the Scottish FA to join in nicely seems to be a difficult trick; see Scottish FA opposes Team GB for Rio Olympics in 2016. Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that presuming you mean the FIFA (football) world cup, Scotland haven't qualified since 1998 and never advanced past the group stage, Northern Ireland have only qualified for 3, 1958, 1982 and 1986 and Wales only qualified once in 1958. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, it should put the United Kingdom at a disadvantage to have their top players spread out over 4 teams, versus all in one team. You don't win the World Cup with quantity of teams, but with quality. Having more, but weaker, teams would only be an advantage if the winner was chosen at random. StuRat (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP geolocates to Brazil. It is a common misconception that UK = England, when in fact, the UK is four different countries.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

16:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or 5, depending on how you feel about Cornwall. DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's common. Just as we don't see the US as 50 different countries, just as we don't see Germany as 16 different countries, just as we don't see USSR as 15 different countries, we see the UK also as one country, and just like the Netherlands are often called "Holland", the UK are quite commonly called "England". Akseli9 (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In much the same way as the USA are commonly called "New York"? DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of, when everyone from the USA is called Yankees. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Of course both the use of England for the UK and Holland for the Netherlands is not only incorrect, it is also deeply offensive to a lot of people, a fact that is often missed by foreigners. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the UK has it both ways. Sometimes it wants to be considered one country, such as the Monarchy of the United Kingdom (you'll look in vain for the Monarchy of Wales or the Monarchy of Northern Ireland; you will find Monarchy of Scotland and Monarchy of England but these both ceased to exist centuries ago). But sometimes, it wants to be considered many countries (such as the 7 teams that compete at the Commonwealth Games). Is it any wonder that many people are confused, as exceedingly amply demonstrated at Terminology of the British Isles. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness is a tough call here. The US team has a pool of 320 million people from which to draw it's team - France has only 66 million. There is a good argument that the US should have to divide it's best players amongst five regional teams in order to make a fairer game. Or since Ghana has a population of just 20 million, perhaps the French should send three regional teams and the USA about fifteen or sixteen of them?

Clearly population size can't be a determining factor here. But the UK is in fact just a grouping of four separate countries - and who is to deny the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern-Irelanders their chance to win? SteveBaker (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better said that "the US team theoretically has a pool of 320 million people.." The actual pool from which to draw is limited to people who care about soccer, which in the US is proportionately quite small, to say the least. Most Americans think of soccer as "the metric system in short pants"--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "Clearly population size IS a factor, but not the only one". There should be some type of "net soccer population" ("NSP") measure, of those people who played soccer since they were kids, and had the opportunity to get good coaching and move up to the national team, if they were good enough. In the US only a small portion of the population played soccer since they were kids, so the NSP would be much lower than the total population. However, the NSP can't be larger than the actual population (aside from bringing in "ringers" from other nations), so microstates will have a very small NSP, and thus not much chance at winning the World Cup. Nations with large populations, where soccer is important, would be expected to do well, such as Brazil. Of course, there's also a random factor, as a soccer superstar might happen to be born anywhere. StuRat (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... the UK is in fact just a grouping of four separate countries. Maybe, but in a very different way from how NATO, for example, is just a grouping of 28 separate countries; or the OECD, or OPEC, or the Warsaw Pact, or ASEAN, or the G8, or many other examples. Reducing the UK down to that simplistic grouping is very misleading. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Europeans, zey are very very violent, for example Yugoslavia voz a very nice kantry, zen zey had vor, now it's five different kantries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KageTora (talk • contribs)

The issue here, which no one has clearly identified, is the peculiar definition of "country" used for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. For the rest of the world, "country" means "sovereign nation-state". At this point, only the United Kingdom as a whole qualifies for the usual definition of "country". No other sovereign nation-state in the world gets to send multiple teams to the World Cup. That's where the question of fairness arises. Why does the United Kingdom get to have the attitude, "We consist of several countries but every other nation-state in the world consists of only one"? I understand completely that each of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom has its own unique history, and in the cases of England, Scotland, and debatably Wales, a misty and distant history of sovereign independence (though that was never true of Northern Ireland; Ulster maybe, but not the 6 counties). But the same is true, and more recently true, of the constituent parts of Italy and Germany, and nobody claims that, say, Mecklenburg is really a separate country and therefore entitled to its own team at the World Cup. Marco polo (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the different bits of Italy and Germany had bothered to have their own national football teams, and start playing international matches before unification, then they could have their own teams still. They didn't, so they don't. If you don't like our game, then don't play it. make one up for yourself. DuncanHill (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the fairness or not of the situation (which is irrelevant, really. Fairness is what little kids care about when they count the cookies they get for dinner and what their siblings got) that doesn't have any parallels here. The 4 Home Nations national football teams come well after the formation of the UK. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland became United in 1801. Wales had been a formal part of the Kingdom of England the middle 1500s and Scotland and England were united in 1707. The Football Association wasn't even formed until 1863, over 6 decades after Ireland joined the Union and centuries after the others. Technically, the FA is older than Germany, which only united in 1871. So, you are technically wrong on both counts. Just a sayin'. Regardless, each of the Home Nations does get their own national football team (and Rugby teams too!) and that's Just The Way It Is. Rationalizing it is beyond the scope of this board, unless one wishes to look into merely describing the history of these organizations, which one can do already by following links from articles already cited in this discussion.--Jayron 32 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "monarchy of Wales" or "monarchy of Northern Ireland" because Wales never had a king and Northern Ireland has only been a political entity since 1922. When are the monarchies of Scotland and England supposed to have ceased to exist? Elizabeth II is still Queen of England and James II of England was James VII of Scotland. England, Scotland and Wales are no different from, say, the Czech Republic and Slovakia when they were united. The fall of the Iron Curtain didn't change the countries making up Czechoslovakia, and if Scotland were to leave the Union the countries would still be the same. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The Monarchy of England and the Monarchy of Scotland both ceased to exist in 1707. She is not the Queen of England nor the Queen of Scotland. She is only the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the context of her role in those lands. The Kingdom of Ireland was a separate realm, and as such, continued to exist until January 1, 1801 when it was Unified with the other two. Northern Ireland is a rump state that is a remnant of this kingdom when the Irish Free State broke away in 1922. Northern Ireland, therefore, has a direct connection to the former Kingdom of Ireland. There was an independent Monarchy of Wales until 1283 or so, though it's ruler was known by the title "Tywysog", usually translated Prince. The last truly independent Prince of Wales was Dafydd ap Gruffydd, who ruled the Principality of Wales until 1283-1284, when the Statute of Rhuddlan ended it's independence, though it was legally a distinct realm under the English crown (the King of England was separately Prince of Wales in the same way that the King of Spain was simultaneously King of Portugal during the years of the Iberian Union). There was a putative independent Prince of Wales in the person of Owain Glyndŵr who revolted against Henry IV, but he was never recognized by the English crown as the rightful Prince. The distinction ended in 1542 when Parliament formally ended the independent Welsh state. So there you go, yes all four home nations were, at one time, all four independent monarchies. All four in order (Wales in 1542, Scotland in 1707, Ireland in 1800, - southern Ireland in 1922) were annexed into a single crown with a single title and a single realm. By the time the FA was created and organized national football began on the British Isles, there were not four separate realms, nor four separate monarchies. Since 1800 (with a border change in 1922) there has been a single monarchy known as the "United Kingdom", and Queen Elizabeth II is the current monarch of THAT single realm. She has never been Queen of England or of Scotland or of Wales or of Ireland. She has always only been Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And England, Scotland, and Wales ARE different from the Czech Republic and Slovakia when they were united. Because they are different countries with a different history and different ways of coming into being. You cannot draw analogies between the organization of one sovereign state and any other in that way. They are all different. --Jayron 32 18:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness may be pointless to debate, since the world is unfair, but it is not "irrelevant", since it was part of the original question, which should be the arbiter of relevance. Despite my earlier comment on—let's call it the anomaly of the special status of the parts of the United Kingdom in FIFA, the explanation for this anomaly is that association football, as such, originated in England, and the first football association, known as The Football Association, was confined to England. The first "international" match was between England and Scotland. As founding entities for the sport, constituent parts of the United Kingdom obtained a special status within FIFA, which formed later. It's a case of first comer's privilege. Marco polo (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, as I pointed out above, having more teams makes them less likely to win, not more likely, so it's a disadvantage, not an advantage. Although, admittedly, 4 teams probably get more media coverage than 1 team would. So, if the goal is more publicity and fewer World Cup championships, that's the way to go about it. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument Charles is the prince of the United Kingdom, but he's not - he's the Prince of Wales. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, by that argument, he is still the Prince of Wales. As the Queen of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth is free to grant titles as she sees fit. Since Wales is a real place inside her realm, she can grant the title to any of her subject she wishes. By tradition, the Monarch always grants the title to the first born son. But that's neither here nor there. The actual history exists, and doesn't need you to understand it to be true. --Jayron 32 18:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles is a Prince of the United Kingdom, but not "the Prince of the United Kingdom". He is "the Prince of Wales", but not a Prince of Wales (except in the sense of a particular case of a generic reference to this title). His brothers Andrew and Edward are also Princes of the United Kingdom. These three sons all had these titles from birth, as sons of the sovereign. Their dear old Dad was appointed a P of the UK some years into his marriage, which is why he is now known as Prince Philip, and not by the title he first had upon marriage, the Duke of Edinburgh. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 1707 Act of Union abolished the Scottish Parliament. I am not aware that it abolished the Kingdom of Scotland as well. According to Whitaker's Almanac, which is a highly reliable source,

The Kingdom of England occupies the southern position of the island of Great Britain.

The Kingdom of Scotland occupies the northern portion of the main island of Great Britain.

Bonnie Prince Charlie referred to his father as "James VIII and III".

Under the heading "The Principality of Wales":

Wales occupies the extreme west of the central southern portion of the island of Great Britain.

You would expect a "principality" to have a prince, and it does. Elizabeth is Supreme (temporal) Governor of the Church of England, not as Queen of Scotland but as Queen of England. She is also the head of the Church of Scotland (and presumably the Scottish Episcopal Church). There is a Church in Wales. The Scottish courts have no jurisdiction in England, and vice versa. Northern Ireland and Scotland have their own parliaments and prime minister. Wales also has a parliament. The proceedings may be conducted in Welsh. If you drive over the Severn Bridge you will come to a sign saying "Welcome to Wales" in Welsh. If you drive to Gretna Green you will come to a sign saying "Welcome to Scotland", possibly in Gaelic. The County of Middlesex has not had a High Sheriff or Lord Lieutenant since 1965 but it does have a cricket team and you can write letters to people who live there. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The places exist as places. The monarchies, as institutions, do not. There is no Queen of Scotland. There is a Queen of the United Kingdom, who reigns over a territory that includes the piece of land called "Scotland". There's a distinction there which you are willfully pretending not to be able to understand. --Jayron 32 15:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> "That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain... " I don't care what Whitaker's says. The actual act of Parliament says there is One Kingdom created in 1707 by the name of Great Britain. --Jayron 32 15:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Yes, I just looked that up myself. There is a saying "The law is an ass". You are saying that England does not have a Queen. I don't believe that and I don't believe anyone else believes that either. Don't say it too loudly because you might be sent to the Tower.156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said England does not have a Queen. I said that there is no Queen of England, any more than there is a Queen of Yorkshire or Queen of Cornwall or Queen of any-other-territorial-division-of-that-land. England has a Queen. Her title is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is no Kingdom of England today. There is a Kingdom, which includes England, that is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Please pay attention and keep up. --Jayron 32 15:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She's also Queen of the Commonwealth. The fact that there's no law that says that doesn't make it any less real. Yorkshire never had a Queen, while Cornwall has a Duchess who may well become Queen (although I personally don't think that should happen while Parker - Bowles is alive). There is no law that says that she and her loyal subjects cannot call her Queen of England. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can call her anything you damned well please. It doesn't mean there's a real, functional state called the Kingdom of England over which she is the sovereign. I can call her Queen of My Bedroom, and it doesn't make my bedroom a real, functional state. --Jayron 32 16:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this neck of the woods, we have Pearly Kings and Queens. There's no functional state - all there is is a rotten borough presided over by an elected mayor who's been removed for corruption. After George VI died Queen Elizabeth remained Queen although there was no functional state over which she presided. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That Queen Elizabeth was a Queen Consort, not a Queen Regnant. Upon George VI's death, she became formally the Dowager Queen Consort, but she preferred to be known as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. She never "presided" over anything; her husband reigned in the United Kingdom and other realms, but she was just his wife and later his widow. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She isn't "Queen of the Commonwealth", as there is no such post: she is the Head of the Commonwealth, and Queen of 16 Commonwealth realms, one of which is the UK. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are queens regnant and there are other types of queen, but they are queens nevertheless. There were (there may still be) Rajahs in India but their titles were not dependent on their territory being coterminous with a sovereign state. Victoria was Empress of India - her title was no less valid because India was not self - governing. I don't see that being a queen is any different from being a Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marquess or Duke - just a little more exalted. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, you're correct there. There is no currently active titled Queen of England, nor is there a Kingdom of England today one could be queen of. There used to be, but they abolished it in 1707. --Jayron 32 18:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some neat stuff above. Just as a comparison, consider that both the US and Puerto Rico go to the Olympics. Matt Deres (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So does Hong Kong and China. Macau wants to as a seperate entity (and China also wants Macau to go), but they aren't allowed. They do go to the Asian Games and I think some other sports or games as a seperate entity. Nil Einne (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Stalin era, both Belarus and Ukraine had seats at the United Nations, which is saying something. Replying to the penultimate post, your answers would be more convincing if you weren't an American. What I know of Americans is that they denigrate the monarchy, to the extent that they refused to pay their taxes and threw the goods that attracted the tax (in this case tea) into Boston harbour.

A long time ago Her Majesty was gracious enough to confer Letters Patent on me. The documentation is impressive - there is a big red seal and it starts off

Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

One of these territories is the Isle of Man, and if the Isle of Man can have a queen, so can England. It is a mistake to argue that because a kingdom is joined with another it ceases to exist. The first Elizabeth (or was it Mary?) said that when she died the word "Calais" would be found engraved on her heart. By virtue of the Channel Islands the kings of England claimed also to be kings of France for much longer than that.

England has a patron saint - St George - and a national day (St George's Day) on 23 April, (also the date of the birth and death of Shakespeare), just three days before the birthday of the Queen, who will be ninety next year, God bless her. If England can have a patron saint she can have a Queen as well. Only Mexico has fewer public holidays than England and Wales (even New Year's Day wasn't a public holiday till 1974 and people still had to work because of electricity rationing during the miners' strike (Ted Heath again, Medeis)) and it's high time that St George's Day was added to them. The need is more pressing now that banks have started to open on these "bank holidays". We should reverse the tide of secularism and restore the Whit Monday holiday, which has become the anodyne "Late Spring Bank Holiday".

Back in 1965, three parishes united. St Leonard, Shoreditch, St Mary, Stoke Newington and St John at Hackney came together to form a new civil parish, the London Borough of Hackney. But the Rector of St John was still the Rector of Hackney, the Rector (Vicar?) of St Leonard was still the Rector (Vicar?) of Shoreditch (whose bells chimed "when I grow rich" in the famous nursery rhyme) and the Rector (Vicar?) of St Mary was still the Rector (Vicar?) of Stoke Newington. Uniquely, Stoke Newington has two parish churches, the old and new St Mary's, and the longest street name in London, Stoke Newington Church Street, in which these buildings stand. Another famous nursery rhyme contains the words

Up and down the City Road
In and out of the Eagle

and the Eagle pub still stands on the corner of City Road and Shepherdess Walk in Shoreditch. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely not listening, or paying any attention to what we're telling you. Let's repeat ourselves one more time. Yes, England is a real place. It has borders, patron saints, people who live there, an ethnicity, etc. What doesn't exist is the institution known as the Kingdom of England. England as a place is part of a larger state, which does have an institution known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You're either refusing to listen, being willfully obtuse, or trolling us now. You've been explained the difference multiple times between "The place called England which is part of the lands which has a Queen" and "The Queen of England". That you refuse to acknowledge these explanations is getting tiresome. Also, the Isle of Man doesn't have a queen. It has a Lord. The Lord of Mann is also Queen Elizabeth II, but her role as Lord of Mann is separate from her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. Yes, the same person holds both roles, but they are distinct roles. Just like the Monarchy of Canada and Monarchy of Jamaica and Monarchy of Australia are separate jobs all held by the same person, the Lord of Mann likewise is a separate role held by the Queen of the United Kingdom. There is no role known as the Monarchy of England. It does not exist anymore. This is different from one person holding multiple roles, it is a case where the former roles were abolished and replaced by a single one. And again, the analogy to the merging parishes is irrelevent. The fact that some things do one thing one way does not constrain other things to do things differently. It doesn't matter what other things have done. The Monarchy of England, as an institution, does not exist anymore and has not for over 300 years. --Jayron 32 17:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying pony videos

moved to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Annoying_pony_videos

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Lots of annoying pony videos show up on my YouTube recommended videos and it's so embarrassing since i don't even watch that sort of cartoons. Could any one of your kind souls work this out for me...? I don't fancy when I am in the middle of a power point me clicking on YouTube and pony videos popping up. That would be so embarrassing and it would be the worst possible thing for me for social stuff and getting teased.

If this doesn't happen when you are using private browsing mode and aren't logged on to your account but only happens with your normal browser, then it's likely Google has decided these are the sort of thing you want. In that case, if you aren't logged in to an account, clear your cookies. If you are logged in to your account, you'll either have to delete your history, or open and subscribe to enough other stuff that it will start showing different stuff. However this may not work, or won't work long term if the reason this arose in the first place keeps occuring. If it's not an account problem but it is a shared computer, you should create seperate OS or browser profile for youself which only you use. If it it's an account problem, are you sure you are keeping your account secure? Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes I am keeping my account secure. Why would Google decide that though....? I don't have any younger sisters or brothers to do that so I am stumped. I don't fancy deleting my history because someone might get the wrong idea. I've got different accounts for each family member so no one could have made a mistake. The videos show mostly the Mane 6 with some Princess Celestia and Princess Luna to boot. No fun indeed. I know about that because of pony spamming on forums and stuff. 78.148.88.75 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If getting caught with ponies would be the worst possible thing for you, giving someone the wrong idea by deleting history should be the relatively safer option.

Remember, Google doesn't just build your demographic profile from YouTube videos you watch, but anything you do on any site it has trackers and widgets and whatnot in. For instance, MLPForums.com launches scripts from googlesyndication.com and ajax.googleapis.com. If that's not the forum you've learned about how friendship is magic at, it probably also applies to the one where you did.

If you Google something like "why is my little pony in my recommended videos?", you're just associating yourself further. But when I Googled it (protected somewhat by NoScript), I found this, which suggests you're not alone. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can check here to find out what Google thinks you like, and tell it to stop guessing, if you'd like. If it doesn't suggest you like ponies, it might just be that the brony community has an effective viral marketing strategy, and you've been touched by it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried using the ad check but it showed nothing. I do not like MLP so I have not gone on any forums nor listened to any of the MLP videos on my recommended videos on YouTube. I had a look at the thread but it was useless due to the fact that it showed no tips to deal with it and the thread was mostly mudslinging at YouTube or calling the OP a brony. So why does it continue to happen. Do you have any more tips. Thank you. 2.98.95.185 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please response. Also the videos are still there and there seems to be a lot of links to MLP Forums and FiMfiction but I don't know why. Could any of you please help. Thanks! 2.98.95.185 (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the urgency of the question, I have moved it to the Computing Desk. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]