Forum:Forum:I am requestion exclusion of a real name for a deceased user Galonodel, the information could be harmful to identifying relatives and partners.

Forums: Index > Exclusion of information > Forum:I am requestion exclusion of a real name for a deceased user Galonodel, the information could be harmful to identifying relatives and partners.

http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Galonodel is the user in question.

The main issue is the inclusion of his real name. This name was added earlier this year (retrieved March 8, 2017) and presents a grave disrespect for the privacy of both him and any connections to his partner Geo Vaughan. This information is highly sensitive and pertains to a terrible tragedy and a case of manslaughter. Said case is a direct consequence of another user, http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Zidonuke. Both pages make mention of Galonodel's real name.

Speaking on behalf of Geo Vaughan as a friend. He does not want any of this traced back to him, nor does he wish for any connection to link Galon's information to his personal life.

I hope this is a reasonable request to remove both these things. This has only been brought to our attention now as in the past the incident was still cause for mourning and there was no knowledge of this display of inconsiderate disdain, wiki or not. It was a surprise to learn that this is considered acceptable to do and I hope the same respect is extended to http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Kalili_Youngblood who is involved in the same incident.

A more difficult request is not just the removal of Galonodel's real name, but that of Zidonuke's as well. For as long as Zidonuke's real name is readily available, the links to news articles and of his reckless driving and manslaughter will easily be tracked back to Galonodel. This has severe consequences for Geo Vaughan who works in a school and could jeopardise his entire career should any one student even decide to google his real name.

please give this request your full consideration. I understand that Zidonuke's real name has been available for a long time already, but nevertheless, this is about paying respects to the dead and Zidonuke is facing a severe amount of prison time that he has already pleaded guilty to. It would not be proper for him either to have his name revealed.

Ernest (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2017 (EST) Ernest

Ernest (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2017 (EST) Ernest.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble envisioning why people discovering Vaughan was in a relationship with someone who died as the result of someone's reckless driving, on a page where the event is described dispassionately and thoroughly cited with links to publicly-available news sources in any way jeopardizes Vaughan's career. I think it's a matter of importance to the furry community/ies that they be able to link Zidonuke to his actions, which resulted in the deaths of two other members of the community.

Also of note, there are ways that we can exclude a specific page from search engine results, though I'm not sure it's justified in this case. --Equivamp - talk 11:05, 5 December 2017 (EST)

You're misunderstanding my concern. There is no issue of addressing the fact that Zidonuke's actions has taken the lives of two members of the community, I am not requesting removal of Galonodel's page nor any reference to Geo Vaughan. There is only the very real consideration that any any connections that may lead to negative assumptions, the spreading of harmful rumours which can very easily spread out of control, and the risk of spreading slander that could seed disdain for both Geo Vaughan and Galonodel which now due to wikifur is easily traced to their real names.

Is there not sufficient past evidence that discovering links to the furry community for previously unsuspected persons has not just led to negative connotations but they will also suffer a potential lifetime of alienation? This is not just a matter of opinion, the direct link to a furry aspect itself spurs detestable beliefs among any others that should not understand it more. It is not the responsibility for Geo Vaughan to correct these misinterpretations, but the link in itself is not in anyone's best interest to unloose that sort of trouble in one's life. Zidonuke's actions should be linked to Galonodel's online alias whereas Zidonuke's real name will link to Galonodel's own through public knowledge, that is not a problem, but there is no need for wikifur to make that connection for all those elements unnecessarily.

Let it also be said, that the legitimacy of my argument for the justification of this removal is every bit as valid had Galonodel not had a partner. Galonodel still has friends and family, students, and potential employers which will all be gathering material for Zidonuke's trial. Galonodel has every right for this incident to be considered solely on the basis of the real life incident, the connection to the furry community has nothing to add to his case except to harm his reputation. It is quite a lack of foresight to publish this information here and for the same reasons police often withhold information to protect the victims, the victims here run in the dozens via his friends and family. There is much more to consider here. I don't know how much more I need to forward this argument, by your argument, the need for condemnation for Zidonuke outweighs any thought to the needs of those Galonodel has been survived by and himself, his memory does not deserve to be connected to any of this. It is completely irrelevant.

On another note, forgive me for not understanding how to use the forums, and if there's anyway to correct the spelling error in the title, please do this for me. Ernest (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2017 (EST)

Galonodel has passed away; it can no longer be said that there can be a material damage to him (income, safety, etc) if a family member were to discover that Galonodel browsed furry websites or went to furry conventions in his life. Zidonuke has already plead guilty; clearly the information listed here can't impede the trial. Had the police withheld information about the case, the articles here on WikiFur would not have been able to cite multiple public news sources.

There is no reason to censor Galonodel's name from the article, and the only thing I can see worthy of being removed is the reference to his relationship with Vaughan, who appears to have deactivated or made private his furry accounts, and doesn't have an article on WikiFur anyway. --Equivamp - talk 18:51, 5 December 2017 (EST)

Then I simply ask for the option you listed above which is to exclude the page from search results, let it remain for any who are familiar with wikifur to browse. I still maintain that there are many more victims than Galonodel thus your point about there not being any material damage to a deceased person is very difficult to comprehend. The trial is more than just the difference between guilty and innocent, it is a negotation for the amount of jail time as well as a public statement from both the defendant and accused. Ernest (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2017 (EST)

So, I'm kind of suffering from a cold here and running on not much sleep, but let me try to summarize my understanding before I konk out here - feel free to add corrections or clarifications:

• We have a third party, E, arguing on behalf of another third party GV (who they claim to represent the interests of)
• The actual people for which real life information is desired to be removed are a) G, a person who is sadly deceased, apparently through no fault of their own, and b) Z, a now-convicted criminal and notorious bad boy, both within the community and in real life.
• The justification for removal appears to be that furry is some kind of mark of shame, at least within the context of the community in which G lived and/or GV operates in, and it is possible that family members of G or co-workers and students of GV will find out that they are a furry because of the RL identities of G and/or Z and . . . something something bad stuff happens. Like GV loses their job for being a risk to children, or it isn't a firing matter but just makes their lives harder; and G's USMC unit has to suffer not only G's death but the dishonour of having harboured a fennec fox. (Or maybe it's that he was gay?)

My immediate thought is that this is going to be a hard argument to swing, because:

• The person seeking the removal isn't (apparently) the person who would benefit.
• The main living person who would allegedly benefit, GV, isn't either of the persons whose information is to be removed. (Typically such a request comes from the subject.)
• The argument that being known to be a furry by itself is a super-bad thing probably isn't that compelling to a bunch of furries. Especially if a large part of what we're being asked to do is to try to protect the honour and good name of a deceased person - or perhaps their families? (If people from their family were to get in contact with, say, Fur Affinity to remove purportedly-damaging content, that might be a productive way to proceed, since there's an argument that they should have some control over the accounts. AFAIK the law remains in flux here.)
• The only time I can recall us removing the real-life name of a convicted criminal was when the furry community had concerns over the validity of the conviction, and IIRC that was after the sentence had been served. In this case the criminal hasn't even been sentenced.

On the other hand, well the list is short, but:

• Both of the real names were revealed via mainstream news apparently as a result of the actions of Z, not G or GV. It was not their intention to link their real lives to furry. Any blame for that arguably falls on Z. (But as noted, that presumes it's a bad thing to begin with.)

Again, super-tired here, sorry I didn't get back to you earlier today Ernest. I can't help thinking that we're on different pages though, in large part because furries as a whole really don't see furry stuff as something to be ashamed of; rather, we would celebrate their contribution to the community prior to their untimely departure. Even if all of the rumours about furries were true, which - alas - is not the case as often as many furries would like. --GreenReaper^(talk) 19:50, 5 December 2017 (EST)

Thank you for your comprehensive reply. You do have the first three points correct and those arguments seem rather compelling to me and I would very much doubt those things would not happen.

As for your perspective on it. To address your first point, I am not directly involved in the affairs of G and GV, I am an acquaintance that has known them both well and has witnessed their families grieve for many months. I do not benefit myself from this except to say that the well-being of both these parties are of great importance to me, and your understanding of the one who has most to benefit, which in itself is a terrible term to use as it's more akin to 'not be harmed', is indeed G himself. His ties with military and high standings in the community are upheld with his reputation of honor and dignity, he keeps both aspects of his life separate as do most furries. GV is however a living person that is also subject to whatever might befall G as well as he too is in a very sensitive and responsible position. I don't believe it requires his direct consultation but if it helps with your consideration by introducing a voice of authority, I will see if that can be arranged but you must understand how difficult a subject this is for not just him but the families of those involved. As well as that, I also am trying to ask for you to understand the opinions of furries on what embodies a furry is a poor measure of the significance of this label. I am not disputing that it is a "super-bad" thing, but I am asking this for I am hoping to draw upon any measure of respect or even... empathy for the parties involved, yes, including their families. There is little hope to convincing others on what actually constitutes a furry because for starters, they're not furries, and secondly there is no desire to reveal this information voluntarily and if the information is discovered firsthand by any others, that information spreads very quickly and very disastrously through social media and simply via talking. Before G or GV's circle even knows about it, there would already have been consequences that can not be reversed. Forget removal of Z's name, that was a far stretch in the first place. There is only the most immediate worry, none of the main-stream news articles linked the victim's real identity to an online alias of 'Galonodel' So I don't understand that argument, it only wikifur that has made that connection, and its removal does not contradict what I am arguing for. Once again, I am not asking you as furries, I am asking you as people to understand what risks this entails to the lives outside of being furries. I am trying to prevent anyone from doing so, but it is of no difference to the fandom if the fandom celebrates 'G' and not his real life identity. for his 'contribution' was made as G, and his real name was not even made known to anyone until his departure. It makes no sense for it to be there if the intention is to celebrate G's contribution.

Question, for context: Are you here at the behest of GV, or has he otherwise specifically indicated that he would like information about his partner removed from this site? (I've also noindexed the article for now, though hopefully this is satisfactorily resolved before it has much effect on search engines.) --Equivamp - talk 23:12, 5 December 2017 (EST)

I am not at the behest of GV. He has not asked me to do this. I opened this topic for what I believe is a justified change for not just G, but any future incidents that may have similar issues for the deceased. The previous understanding of wiki's are that the information on subjects are comprehensive, unbiased, and perfected cited however I had for a long time gone under the assumption that there was some measure of common sense for a furry wikipedia to not include real identities for it is a wikipedia on furries and Galonodel has never made any attempt to make his real name known to the public (unlike the furries who have and do have their real life names on their pages. G does not have that luxury to choose). Keep in mind the gravity of any slight inkling of unreputable activities in this modern age and how it can affect teachers in daily proximity to kids in today's zero tolerance schools. Expecially a male teacher. It is a very controversial subject and entire careers have been unfairly destroyed without room for explanation or compromise.

having understood this shocking inclusion on his page, I also understood that anyone could have edited the page boldy and removed that information and stated a reason, I could have done so and included all the information above it may have stayed for a long time but would likely be reverted and I don't want to start an edit war. No, I wish to arrive at a consensus with the rest of the wikifur editors.

If I must be blunt, the issue of being traced back to being a 'furry' is just the tip of the iceberg. Further research into Galonodel's furry profiles would unveil "interests" would defame him in the public eye, yet be considered tame in the domain of the furry community. The ones in the furry community who knew him may be bothered by his pursuits but accept it for it's not uncommon to find such interests made known in the community. The same could not be said if it was revealed to any other, especially in professional relationships, and this is regarding both G and GV.

I wish to draw everyone's opinion to this page from wikipedia's editing policies because I can not speak for wikifur's policies. I do not claim to use wikipedia as a substitute for wikifur's own but I ask for your better judgement as these rules were written for a reason. Forgive me for I don't know how to use citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead. The wording here being "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." I fully believe this applies to Galonodel for the implications here can discredit everything these people have worked for, and special consideration for wikifur's own context regarding G's current circumstance.

• There are four sections on that same page that that paragraph applies to. The first, People who are relatively unknown "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see #Using the subject as a self-published source. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." G is not a public figure, nor has he published his own material, and his notability in this context only pertains to the furry side for the sake of this wiki that discusses furries.

• Secondly, Avoid victimization. "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." G here is the victim of Z's actions. Information lasts forever and should this information be made known at some point, there will be more victims than G.

• Thirdly, Privacy of personal information and using primary sources. "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." This is the important detail of which I regard as common sense when dealing with furry aliases. At no point having known G, did he wish for his full name to be made public. I have no figures or sources but unless there is any claim that challenges it, my own experiences has told me that this holds true for the vast majority of furries who keep their furry lives and personal lives separate. As far as 'widely published' goes. G was not a public figure as I said above, the only widely spread source is information on his death, and his obituary, neither of which I would argue is 'widely published' nor are of instances where G has intentionally made his own real life identity known.

• Fourthly, Privacy of names "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." This is the most significant one of them all. Galonodel's page is almost entirely dedicated to his real life, and a great portion of that to his death. There is no context loss by omitting his name, and as before, it has been intentionally concealed especially considering it is part of sensitive court case and an occupation that is very intolerant of deviants. Also, another detail I must draw your attention to is that there needs to be secondary sources other than news media to really claim that his name is widely disseminated. Including details that hurt his privacy adds no value to the article, everyone knows him as Galonodel and there is no need for anything to the contrary.

Ernest (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2017 (EST)

I'm pretty loathe to grant a redaction in a case where none of the people involved are actually the ones requesting it. To address a few things, though:

• If there are things on Galonodel's online profiles that might make people think less of him posthumously, that is not defamation, which by definition is untrue. It is not WikiFur's responsibility to make anyone look good. Our responsibility is to create accurate, fair, quality articles on subjects related to the furry fandom.
• Understandably, WikiFur has much less stringent rules of notability than Wikipedia; see our policy: Generally, anything which is connected to, or of interest to members of, the Furry fandom is notable for our purposes. If you were to check the comments left on Galonodel's Fur Affinity profile, you will see many people sharing their condolences, or friends expressing that they miss him. Interest to the community is clear. And whereas Wikipedia cautions against primary sources, they are likely the best or even only source with regards to the fandom.
• Galonodel is not discussed only in regards to a single event. He is discussed in terms of his interests, his military and DIA service, his fursona, his relationship, etc - if only briefly. Of course, people who knew him are welcome to add more information, but what is currently there is (as far as I can tell) provided by Galonodel himself on still-public profiles.

--Equivamp - talk 16:02, 6 December 2017 (EST)

Allow me to clarify a few things. I never claimed that wikifur is defaming him. Information granted from wikifur and its collective links will grant any parties outside of the fandom to defame him whether it be justifiably or not. You underestimate the extents malicious people will go to defame someone, what they need is a catalyst, they don't care about facts. The accuracy, fairness, and quality of G's article is no in dispute, but whether or not they are related to the furry fandom are. There is nothing that says a person's furry online identity can not reveal, for example, their professional life, military, and relationships. Yet I stress again, these qualities, these attributes, these details of his life are aspects of his online persona "Galonodel", as is stated on FA. Should his real life identity be on his FA too, I would not be here discussing this. All the condolences from friends that you are referring to address 'Galonodel'. What wikifur has done is add information that is already provided by Galonodel himself as well as information gathered by other furries who knew him, but additional irrelevant material gathered from sources no one in the fandom had any expectation of knowing. I guarantee you that no one on that page who left their condolences are doing so in relation to his real life name being revealed, nor did they care to know. A lot of other details of G's personal life could be gathered too now that his name has been made knowledgeable and put on the wiki, but they too are an aspect of his life that G kept separate from the community because it had nothing to do with the community just like his real name.

If your opinion on everything else has settled and can be swayed solely on whether or not the one requesting a change is either of the people involved, say as such, and it can be addressed separately.

Ernest (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2017 (EST)

It is worth noting that the page is picked up by archive.org, whom I'm not sure will be willing to remove previous snapshots. Even if the name is removed here, the idea as far as I can tell is to remove the link between Galonodel and their real name, which, I would assert that if someone finds it on WikiFur, it's not beyond the possibility that said info couldn't be found on archive.org by said person as well. Not to mention if there is a link between Galonodel and the real name anywhere else, it only takes one site. --FrostTheFox (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2017 (EST)

I have no expectations that the records will be gone from the internet entirely, that is far too unrealistic and it's been much too long for that to be possible. However wikifur is still the primary and most direct link between the two, and I wish to start here for I am hoping to get through to FA as well. I am only concerned for anyone that might accidentally discover the link. Anyone who already knows enough to search archive.org does not need wikifur to do so.

Ernest (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2017 (EST)

I suppose that's fair, it's meh for me because most people wouldn't go back to the 3rd page of Google, but regardless, it's noindexed so I don't see it as being significant to remove it anymore. If it's not in search engines, the only way you could access it on WikiFur is by searching for Galonodel (by which case you would have already known to look up that name), or by searching the real name, which once again why would you be "accidentally" searching someone's name on WikiFur? --FrostTheFox (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2017 (EST)

That is a small comfort although it is not as much of a help as long as Zidonuke's page holds that link to G's own. The matter is only more pressing now and more likely to be an issue as the personal statements of friends and family are being collected and legal documents are being reviewed for the court case. Friends in this case includes those in the furry community that are the most dear and trustworthy enough to withhold sensitive information and are urged to write only of their experience knowing G' as an online acquaintance. These statements are also compared to the offender's and there is no way of knowing what Z's might contain and whether or not it might be used to besmirch his name.

Regardless, it is not productive to seed inner conflict and remove their ability to produce an unbiased statement of what G' meant to them for those outside the fandom. Natural curiosity will drive people to comb through everything they know of G' to better understand him and this extends to the internet as well. This is a tenuous time where the verdict of the judge does dictate, not whether the defendant is guilty for he has already pleaded as such, but for the extent of the sentence and for compensation to the victims. I am here to ask of wikifur to take this into consideration. To say "it can no longer be said that there can be a material damage to him", is plainly untrue.

• Just wanted to add that this request also pertains to removing any mention of G's real life identity from pages beyond his own, namely Zidonuke's page. Doing only on G's own is rather ineffective.

Is there anything else anyone would like to add? I wish to resolve this is as soon as possible in the manner that is of best interest to G and GV as well as the family in this scenario that requires special attention. I've said my part.

None of the other people who have contributed to the discussion have seemed to favor removal of the information, and I'm tired of going in circles with you as the only one keeping it going, so I'm going to reiterate that I'm not in favor of any removal of information based on these things:

• Geo Vaughan, the only living individual who would apparently be harmed if a connection to the furry subculture were to be made known to friends or family, and who was the spouse (partner?) of Galonodel when alive, has made no indication he wants any of the information removed, censored, etc. The individual making the request is a third party coming on his behalf but not (apparently) with his knowledge or consent.
• The harm that would apparently come to Geo Vaughan, or why, is never made clear, it's only repeated that it's "not just a matter of opinion", and apparently should be obvious, and so never elaborated on despite us clearly not getting it.
• The argument that Galonodel, who is deceased, stands to be harmed by people making the connection between him and the furry community is not something I agree with, and the proposed ways he would be harmed (A. That people will "defame", that is, make up lies about, him, which can apparently be prevented by hiding the truth, and B. that it will result in Zidonuke getting a shorter sentence, which apparently harms Galonodel, and would require that killing someone who had "deviant interests" is less morally reprehensible in the eyes of the law) have not convinced me of such
• The request does not include removal of the very small mention of the only living individual who would apparently be harmed by inclusion

Unless another admin or other users has a different view, or a compromise not mentioned here, I'm not going to take further action for this request. --Equivamp - talk 21:13, 8 December 2017 (EST)

> Natural curiosity will drive people to comb through everything they know of G' to better understand him and this extends to the internet as well.

I'm not very convinced that if one found that someone had an interest in the furry community that it would significantly change the long time experiences and memories they've had with G to the degree where a statement would not be of interest to the prosecution. A judge will not care about one's personal hobbies (no matter how sexual or nonsexual) if it's not related to the case. Zido has pled guilty to **two** counts of involuntary manslaughter, he's not getting a super easy sentence, and any reductions will be likely through a plea deal, which would happen regardless of whether G or GV were involved in the furry community.

Look, I get your concerned about the person, however, you claim to be acting in their best interests, when they're unaware of what you're doing and have expressed no support for this information to be removed from what I can tell. I agree with Equivamp here, and unless GV expressed themselves that they wish for the info to be removed, I don't see a reason to do much further. We already made a compromise of noindexing G's page (which hasn't been reflected by Google yet but should be very soon), and G's name (and even Zido's name) in a Google Search did not yield me Zido's WikiFur page (within a reasonable amount of pages, theoretically if I kept going it would have been there somewhere), so I don't believe there is very likely of a case even for the "accidentally" discovering of G's relation to the community. Once again, if you think that they will still stumble upon these pages and use it to criticize GV, in my opinion they would have had to either had prior knowledge or been purposefully digging for dirt. This is my final input. --FrostTheFox (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2017 (EST)

It doesn't seem like there's any intent left to make any more attempts to negotiate, very well. I've made an effort to address every possible argument that could be made for this case, I believe I have more than enough reasons to justify it. I understand that to further a discussion is tiring, yet I too tire from the repeated way that the many points I've raised have been dismissed as 'going around in circles'. I echo that sentiment as I've more than comprehensively addressed everything. It is a deduction I can not comprehend unless there still remains some misunderstanding, and I've read through all the words carefully and it seems as though the details and my attempts at clarification have been skimmed over.

It does not sound as though the issue here is whether GV is available to comment, and I've already made the reassurance that he could but has so far abstained from it because he realized in my conversations that he has to take other means to protect himself, more likely successful ones. Forgive me but for argument's sake it sounds as though even if I were to theoretically present all this from the very beginning as Geo Vaughan, nothing would have gotten through anyway. I am still offering to involve GV in this, but I can do nothing more to answer the other verdicts that have been made. I thank you for the time you've given me regardless. I still wish to hear from a third opinion if there is one.

Not an Administrator but a user with knowledge of some of the people being addressed here; The Achilles heel of the entire request is that the OP lacks standing to request any special administrative intervention in reference to these articles, which are not about him, but are rather about deceased individuals. It would set a difficult precedent if anyone could successfully request, for reasons that do not even benefit them, administrative exclusions or redactions that are not supported by policy for seemingly random articles. The OP can of course edit the article as any other editor would, and can attempt to achieve consensus with other editors as to what information should be included and this might be the best approach moving forward. But I strongly disagree with the principle of NoIndex'ing the article due to the prerequisite failure discussed above and because such acts are tantamount to arbitrary, consensus-defeating censorship. Finally, I disagree with the notion that anyone should be ashamed of the fact that Cody Ross Cooling was a participant in the anthropomorphic fandom under the name name Galonodel - it's pretty non-controversial stuff. Leon Hunter (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2018 (EDT)