This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Why is it that we are including an image of ducksgeese who are apparently members of the Public and Commercial Services Union? Are we trying to imply that the ducksgeese are members of that union or that union members are likely to be advocacy ducks? What's the point of including the logo of this union on the duckgeese signs?
I recommend removing the image. I could see members of the union getting a little miffed at having their logo used in this fashion.
It is probably worth pointing out that the original description for the image (minus the photoshopped placards) [1] identifies the birds as 'gooses'. And while I'm no great expert, I think it may be correct... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Right you are. I struck my inappropriate speciesist language. My apologies. Someone should fix the files on commons too. jps (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not asserting as fact that they are geese, rather than ducks. They aren't always easy to tell apart. In fact I'm not even entirely sure that (per cladistics at least) there is a difference. Not my subject though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The cladistics are generally done by counting bones in the neck, if I'm to understand correctly. Anyway, a helpful guide is one such as this. I'm pretty convinced that they're geese. jps (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Or at least, Pekin Ducks? The original image seems to be used in the gallery for a Russian-Wikipedia article [2] on the Tylihul Estuary, and there seem to be several breeds of Pekin. Not that it really matters. And back to the original topic, regardless of what they are, they aren't members of the PCS, and we shouldn't be using identifiable placards for an image of 'advocacy'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure they're Pekin ducks. Their necks are much longer than most Pekin ducks. The Russian article identifies them as geese, but whatever.... they're definitely not union members. jps (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
So remove the image?
No objection to replacing it with an image of waterfowl that are not carrying signs from a particular union.
Yup. Any legitimate objection would have to explain how associating an organisation with around 270,000 members with violations of Wikipedia policy was itself compatible with Wikipedia policy. Rather a difficult case to make, I'd suggest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The claim after I removed the image was that there is no consensus for the removal. I'm surprised by that claim. Don't see any objections and unlike aesthetic or syntactic appeals, the reason for removal is so that the essay doesn't (intentionally or unintentionally) defame the union in question by associating them with the behaviors being maligned in the essay. Seems a reasonable approach to me. However, if others object, please indicate why in this space. Thanks. jps (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I really don't see the problem with that image. The writing on signs is too small to see and the fact that the ducks are picketing seems kind of cute and on topic with respect to advocacy.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I recognized the logo immediately, but then again I've known people in this union in the past. Are you from the UK? jps (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that if there's an objection to the image - which there is - that it should be removed, especially since it does not materially contribute to the understanding of what an advocacy duck is or how to find them. Ca2james (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying consensus comprises the following 3 editors: AndyTheGrump, JPS and Ca2James? That isn't how we arrive at consensus. I also know why these same editors oppose the duck image. They have opposed the use of "duck" in this essay from day one. What some editors also also fail to acknowledge is that this essay reflects the opinion of its creator and co-authors although it is open for anyone to edit, the latter of which actually refers to improving the essay by copyediting, expansion like what I tried to do and possibly even some modifications to syntax to improve clarity - that doesn't mean editors have a green light to change the intent or opinions expressed by the essay. WP:Wikipedia Essays suggests that there is no right or wrong and if editors oppose the intent or opinions of a standing essay, it best for them to create their own opposing essay and link it to this one like what Andy just did with his Game of Thrones-like synopsis. Any editor who wants to collaborate and improve this essay is certainly welcome, but tendentious editing and removal of images to change the intent and opinions that created this essay is not an improvement. It's an opposing opinion so may I suggest that you collaborate with Andy on his essay and get it into namespace. I'll be happy to help you with that as well. Atsme📞📧16:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you understand the reason I objected to the image? If you want to recreate the image without the logo of that union displayed and, by implication, associated with the bête noire of this essay, that would do a lot to address my concerns. jps (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying that no one objected to removing the image after discussion, which implies that there was consensus to remove it. You even participated in the discussion and did not object to its removal. You're also misstating the objections, which have nothing to do which not liking "ducks" as a concept, but are twofold: a) there's a union logo in the photo, and b) it isn't clear that they're ducks as they could be geese. It appears that editors are willing to let b) slide but not a). Photoshopping out the logo appears to be a compromise on a). Ca2james (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I GIMP'd the image, and uploaded it in case there is consensus to have a altered image. Anyone wants a better version feel free to make one. AlbinoFerret16:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
They probably aren't ducks, they are a real trade union, the 'joke' is 'heavy-handed' and not very witty. I can't believe that anyone thinks it appropriate to keep this image.Pincrete (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It looks great! I like this new image more because I think the new sayings make it clearer why this image in being included in the essay. Ca2james (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Atsme made the newest one, mine was more or less a crude place holder to end the issue while discussion happened. I think she did an excellent job!AlbinoFerret18:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Could somebody please verify that these are ducks not geese ? Following the picture this seemed to be true, but others say Russian geese.Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
A short scroll up and you'll see a post by Capitalismojo with a wikilink to American Pekin ducks. FYI - ducks have flat bills and they quack. Geese have pointy bills but not the same as WP:POINTY, and they honk, but not like a car. They both eat trout. Atsme📞📧00:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I somehow doubt that they are American Pekin ducks (which the article says was a breed developed in US), in Ukraine (though obviously could be Pekin ducks) and thought it should be established what the person who took the picture said. I couldn't get the picture to 'honk' or 'quack', am I pressing the wrong button? Pincrete (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Which means we can be certain that they're not platypuses. Duck bills aren't perfectly flat, but I agree that the beaks on the birds in the picture look far more like duck bills than goose beaks (geese usually have a more "conical" beak than ducks...). Thomas.W talk17:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Definitely seems like an appropriate allegory for Wikipedia and perhaps the Internet in general. jps (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Why dont you try writing it, your sense of humour would at least make it interesting to read. I have found essay creation to be fun, perhaps you will to. AlbinoFerret17:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
And they have spidey senses - electro-reception, for digging up all the little-life they want to consume.DrChrissy(talk)17:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Will the real duck/goose please quack? A selection of WP water-fowl for your perusal, having spent some time exploring WP pictures, I'm not convinced either way, 'our' ducks/geese have a much more upright stance than American Pekin ducks's and are scrawnier and much scruffier, unfortunately one can't see the distintive 'nether-quiffs' on 'our' picture (btw, according to the APD talk, APD is a misnomer, nobody calls them that, WP uses the term to distinguish them from a - largely 'bred-out'- older German Pekin duck, the whole duck world usually calls the modern form PD's and they are widely commercially raised in Europe).
In the absence of a Russian-speaking domestic water fowl expert, might I suggest the caption is altered to an open-ended question (they look like etc, they walk like etc, so they must be … … mustn't they?). Could I gently point out how silly everyone connected with this essay would look if it turned out these weren't ducks, especially as the Russian article/Google translate actually says 'geese'. Pincrete (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This is becoming a huge time-sink for no end. Poultry walk more upright when they are cautious. Poultry plumage always depends on their prior housing conditions. The original image states that they are both ducks and "gooses" - hardly an ornithologist! Let's move on people!DrChrissy(talk)23:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to say, I think they are prob. ducks, but we don't here work on what may well be probably true, certainly not in this context. Asking the question may anyway be more constructive than asserting the answer.Pincrete (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
MFD candidate?
I'm not sure that this is even useful to begin with. Started by a disruptive editor, the prose is awkward at best, it meanders and has no flow whatsoever, the goals are not clear and the whole thing seems so utterly muddled as to be useless. If an essay is needed, for christ sake, surely we could nuke this and do better from scratch. I see lots of participation here on the talk page, but am I the only one that thinks it isn't worth the effort? Dennis Brown - 2¢14:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
A number of editors have voiced similar concerns here and at the related ANI recently. I think it might be worthwhile at this point to reconsider deleting it now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
No, you aren't. The first versions of the essay were actively harmful; the current version is just crap but "mostly harmless". The problem is it seems to be a rallying-point for some of our most pernicious editors, and the fear is there will be continued efforts to reintroduce the more harmful aspects from the earlier versions. Not sure if yet another deletion attempt is worth the Drama, though. Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This essay has already survived an MfD [3]. A renomination of it when it hasn't been substantially changed would seem disruptive. It would seem better if those involved in battleground here moved on to improving WP. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to AGF here, but... Why would the OP suddenly wade into this article and request its deletion without, I believe, having ever made a single edit at this article before (including with any of his alter guises user:Pharmboy and user:Farmer Brown). Whats more, as indicated by BMC above, the article has been through MfD already and there was a "clear cut consensus" for keep. This could have been easily researched before this thread was started. This thread is a complete and utter waste of editors' time.DrChrissy(talk)17:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Consensus can change. And there is nothing anywhere in any Wikipedia policy or guideline that states that someone has to edit an essay before they express an opinion on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Bingo. A lot of people became aware of this essay throughout here where many previously uninvolved folks indicated they thought it should be deleted. It does appear there is reason to believe there could be a change in consensus. If one wants to go through the drama of another MfD is another question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The diff that Kingofaces43 refers to ended as a boomerang thrown at Atsme. Unfortunately, when boomerangs are thrown, these are often personal and other perhaps more important issues can fall by the wayside. The closure was a non-admin closure by Jytdog who made no mention whatsoever about consensus for deletion of the article (hardly surprising as that was not the topic of the thread). Therefore, a new MfD would have to be started and all those editors who commented on the deletion in the previous thread should be pinged.DrChrissy(talk)21:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
In the event of another MfD being started, it would certainly seem reasonable to contact (with a neutral message) all those that had previously commented in the previous MfD and RfC, certainly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Kind of funny to mention my "alter guises" in a text book case of ad hominem, when it has nothing to do with this essay. (Pharmboy was my first account, Farmer is my non-admin account when Im on an insecure line. If you really cared about good faith, you would have read and figured that out. Check their contrib history for more fun or just to "waste time".) I hadn't seen the ANI until after I saw the essay, which I heard about OFF Wikipedia, at WPO of all places. Frankly, the ANI is irrelevant here, as in my opinion, this is simply a poorly thought out and executed essay, thus MFD is a valid topic to bring up on the talk page. Of course, I could I've just sent it there, I certainly don't need anyone's permission to do so, but being an active page, it is courteous to bring up the issue here first. So far, no one has offered a compelling reason to NOT take it to MFD, so I'm likely to in a couple of days if someone doesn't beat me to the punch or provide a valid rationale. I'm all ears, of course, I just don't see the validity of the essay on its face. Dennis Brown - 2¢14:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Editors that get blocked lose their privileges when they get blocked, so I don't see a need to base timing of discussion around one editor. Additionally, no one editor owns this essay since it moved out of userspace, and it's ultimately up to the community at this point. If it were a discussion of deleting the essay from Atsme's userspace back when it was a draft, it would be a different story, but this essay has been in the community domain for some time now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Generally speaking, it is considered logical (and good manners) to wait until people have expressed their opinions before dismissing them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I didnt dismiss them, but so far the only argument (opinions) for an MFD presented is an argument to be avoided in deletion discussions WP:RUBBISH. If you have another please post it. AlbinoFerret19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Well this is a discussion about having an MFD. No sense having one on failed arguments. That would be just a waste of time. Dont worry, be happy! AlbinoFerret19:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The original author of this page, Atsme, declined several offers to move the page into his her userspace where he she could control the content, and thus anyone can edit this page in any way they choose, subject to the usual rules of consensus. They could even reverse the meaning, replacing the current page with a new page starting with "This essay is not about advocacy ducks, because advocacy ducks do not exist".
I would argue against such a change, advising instead creating a rebuttal essay, and I think the consensus would be with me, but the fact remains that anyone who thinks that this page is fatally flawed is free to replace it with what they think is a non-flawed version and then to follow WP:BRD if anyone objects and reverts.
(2) There is nothing in Wikipedia policy which states that a good-faith nomination for deletion is 'disruptive behaviour' - though editing an essay in order to 'reverse its meaning' might well be seen as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
There have been many editors who have been warned (and blocked if they persist) for re-nominating a page for deletion shortly after a previous nomination closed with a clear consensus. Unless the nominator can demonstrate a reason why they think the consensus may have changed, the nomination most certainly is disruptive. You don't get to ask a question again and again until you get the answer you like. You can, of course try it and see. The worst that will happen is a WP:TROUT.
Following WP:BRD with a single edit that doesn't violate any other policies is not disruptive. It may even survive the resulting consensus discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Who are you suggesting is "ask[ing] a question again and again"? The suggestion that a new MfD might be appropriate came from Dennis Brown, who neither started the previous MfD, or even participated in it. As for editing an essay to give it the opposite meaning not being disruptive, clearly your definition of disruption differs from mine. It looks to me like a recipe for edit-warring, and would seem if the previous version indeed has 'consensus' to be a means of subverting it. An honest discussion on the merits of an essay which has clearly proved controversial is likely to be a darned sight less 'disruptive' than the endless back-and-forth likely to result from your proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what part of "Following BRD" or "with a single edit" wasn't clear, but Wikipedia editors are allowed and even encouraged to make those sort of WP:BOLD edits, and if they WP:TALKDONTREVERT when someone undoes the bold edit, no edit war is possible. On the other hand, nominating a page for deletion right after it passed a previous deletion with a clear consensus to keep -- even once -- is (slightly) disruptive. If the page is nominated multiple times in a short period of time, even if a different editor nominates it each time, that would be a clear example of a group of editors asking a question again and again and ignoring the repeated answer. Again, this is not theoretical. Editors have been blocked for doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Given that the last 'bold' edit resulted in the ANI thread you linked, along with all the other drama, I would have to suggest that your proposed method of resolving the disputes over this essay seems based on a questionable premise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Everyone seems to be getting extraordinarily excited over this essay, which I didn't expect. As I said, I wasn't aware of the previous MFD or ANI over it and I have not gone over and read them either; my opinions are truly virgin; untainted first impressions. I was astounded by the low quality and questionable utility. My goal of mentioning it was to either get the essay "fixed" somehow so that it is at least meets some minimal threshold of coherency or to take it to MFD. WP:DE isn't a concern for reasons that should be obvious now. Again, and with all respect to those that wrote it, it is god awful to read to the point of being painful, as if it was written by a committee rather than a group of collaborative editors. I'm not even sure where the term Advocacy Duck came from and it sounds like someone trying to forcefully create a hybrid neologism and failing even after stringing together all the duck analogies they could find. The confusing message, poor prose and unhelpfulness of this makes it actually harmful rather than educational. There are 103 commas in this short essay, showing how chopped up it is for example. Sorry if this sounds harsh but there just isn't any other way to express the concern without being blunt. I'm not questioning anyone's faith in creating this but faith isn't the measuring stick here. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
As pointed out above, a MFD started based on the quality of the writing of the essay would be based on an argument to avoid in deletion discussions WP:RUBBISH. Its likely that if that is the only argument a MDF will be a waste of time and just more drama in a essay that has way to much as it is. The only other argument I have seen is that it might be a possible target for future PAG violations. That is also an argument to avoid in deletion discussions WP:EASYTARGET. AlbinoFerret14:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
That's one opinion. Note however: (1) the focus of WP:RUBBISH is articles, not essays; (2) WP:RUBBISH is (like this piece) an essay, and is in no way authoritative. Do take into account Dennis's view that the essay is very poorly written. As such it discredits the view it attemps to promote. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
A deletion discussion is a deletion discussion. I have faith an uninvolved closer will apply the same logic to an essay as a article. The premise is that on WP we edit and fix things with problems, not delete them. That is applicable in this situatuation. If the drama and deletion promotion would stop, perhaps it will get better. AlbinoFerret
Dennis Brown - I've watched this whole thing unfold, and this is my own perspective on what has happened, and why there is such strong emotion about it. I work on articles about health broadly, including medicine and food (including ag biotech) and I work on COI matters generally. There is a set of editors here who see me a longterm shill for Monsanto and have hounded me for a few years now - that is actually what got me interested in COI issues and how they are managed here in WP. At an ANI I brought in March about inappropriate claims of COI made in a content dispute (here) that went wildly off the rails, a subsection was opened by Slim Virgin, picking up on boomerang-y COI concerns raised about me in the main ANI thread by my hounders, and in that subsection, the idea of applying WP:DUCK to COI issues was raised as a way to lower the bar to addressing long-term COI issues (this is also in the context of the whole Wifione matter). This led to a long discussion at WT:COI (see top of archive 19 there) about changing the COI guideline to include the DUCK notion, which did not gain traction. In parallel, the idea of writing an essay about applying WP:DUCK to COI issues gained traction in discussions at SlimVIrgin's talk page (see this archive and this archive in March and April, the latter mostly by editors unified mostly by their dislike of me, but also by an affinity for alt-med and concomitant unhappiness with the application of WP:PSCI and dislike of the work of WP:MED on alt med topics, but also by some editors who have had long-term concerns about COI per se.
Atsme, with whom I had clashed at a separate article on a FRINGE altmed topic (G. Edward Griffin), had hooked up with the group of my hounders via that ANI (see here and here), and came to SlimVirgin's talk page, where Atsme offered to write a "COI Duck" essay, and did so. In my view, that essay carried a lot of Atsme's frustration with the things that happened at the Griffin article and actually dealt little with COI as it actually arises in Wikipedia and I don't think that Slim Virgin and some others who had discussed a DUCK COI essay, expected it to turn out that way. That essay was deleted via an MfD that got a very strong and broad response from the community - see here, which basically came down to a judgement that the essay advised editors to treat policy-based consensus as a conspiracy, and was harmful.
This essay - the one for which this is the Talk page - was Atsme's 2nd try at the same topic, and took some of the criticism from the first one on board. (see the archives of this Talk page if you like) An MfD was created for this essay, which ended with "keep". This essay is better than the last one, content-wise, and my sense is that there was a certain amount of exhaustion in the wake of the 1st MfD - the response from the community was much weaker than the 1st one. There has also been a lot of drama at ANI and other boards where various supporters of this essay have been involved, including the most recent one that led to Atsme's block. If there was exhaustion before, there is probably even more now; I don't know that another MfD makes sense but you are of course free to nominate it. That is the background here, again very much from my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
fwiw, I have been opposed to the application of WP:DUCK to COI or advocacy issues since it was first proposed, and I don't care for this essay. As was said by several responders to the 1st MfD, WP:DUCK is used in the specialized context of SOCKing, and SOCKs tend to be somewhat obsessed editors who actually do the same things that they did under their other user names; SPI is one of the most controlled environments here in WP and the use of DUCK is careful there. The idea of unleashing DUCK for use in the broader community is really unwise to me, especially applying it to COI (or advocacy, of which COI is just a subset), which people use as a basis for inappropriate personal attacks far too often. I think WP would be better off without this essay, but again, I would surprised if an MfD would succeed and I don't think it is a great idea to further roil already troubled waters. I also don't think this essay will ever gain much traction, so I think it is, and will remain, pretty harmless. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense now. Again, I came in cold with no previous opinions on the article and simply read it, came here and commented after seeing a lot of discussion but without reading it. That may sound a bit crazy to some, but what you got was an unbiased and unfiltered opinion. As to what I do about the opinion, I've yet to decide, but my opinion regarding the potential harm and quality holds firm: it is a dreadful essay. Of course, the reason I came here to the talk page instead of going straight to MFD was because I didn't have the full background. As for the politics behind it, I have no interest in joining in nor judging anyone for it. I'm just looking at the essay at face value, blind to whoever said what to who in the past. Dennis Brown - 2¢16:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you on all points, Dennis. This essay is neither concise, clear, nor especially useful. If it were an article, I'd consider it a content fork of WP:DUCK or WP: ADVOCACY. I had also been considering nominating the essay for deletion, but had not done so based on how recent the last nomination was. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion is to add the link to the section "Related essays, policies, and guidelines" because the wikilink you're proposing is not the only behavioral characteristic. Atsme📞📧22:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Since you have concerns about my editing here I will let you decide if you really want it in the essay. You can archive this discussion now. Good luck. QuackGuru (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I made a suggestion because the essay you want to wikilink is unrelated to what you've chosen for the link - your essay focuses on citations, which is not a behaviorial characteristic. Considering your history with the AVDUCK essay, and the multiple "-1 edits" you've made here for no valid reason, as evidenced in the edit history, and the fact that you deleted my questions on your TP does raise a legitimate question - WHY? - but with all that aside, my position about the wikilink to your essay remains the same. Over-citing and under-citing is a sourcing issue, not an advocacy issue. Your wikilink will be better served in an essay about MOS or sources and inline citations. I wish you luck promoting your "serious essay" and hope it helps others become better editors as what AVDUCKS was created to do.Atsme📞📧 15:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)I added the wikilink to a relevant phrase in this essay.Atsme📞📧15:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Banner shell
I'd removed the banner shell because at that time it was wrapped around a single wikiproject and the article history milestones. Obviously article history milestones are not a wikiproject and so don't belong in the banner shell. That left a single wikiproject included in the banner shell, which made the banner shell (which refers to *multiple* wikiprojects) incorrect. Obviously now that a second wikiproject apparently associated with this essay has been added, the use of the banner shell is no longer incorrect (weird, maybe, with only two wikiprojects listed, but not incorrect).
Atsme, I don't know why you told me to discuss this on the talk page since I thought my edit summary was quite clear and I hadn't objected to the reintroduction of the banner shell. Next time, please do ask if you have questions. Ca2james (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, except for the one I linked above which said: "Undid revision 850275608 by Ca2james (talk) added another project - please discuss on TP". So here I am, discussing, but I don't understand why you said to do this and I'm asking for clarity. Did you mean something like "discuss on talk page before reverting?" That's not what your words say, so in the future if that is your meaning, please do say that in your edit summary so that your words match your intent. For the present, could you please explain what you wanted me to discuss? Ca2james (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ducks_Pshenyanovo.jpg){kind=link}
