Help desk
< July 6	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help 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 Help Desk pages.

July 7[edit]

Want to make up for not having provided an edit summary[edit]

I refer to Medical Ghostwriter: Medical ghostwriter

I updated a link that had been broken, but did not provide an edit summary. How can I make up for this so that future editors know what I did?

Thank you.

Michael S. Altus, PhD, ELS (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, truthfully, it's easy to view the diff and see exactly what you did (link), but there's no way to add a summary after the fact, if that's what you're asking. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can, however, turn on a reminder to add a summary in your preferences. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are kludgy ways of adding an edit summary after the fact, but, really, it's not worth doing here. It's commendable of you to care, but if you knew how many very experienced editors don't use edit summaries ... --Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I'm relieved that it is easy to view the difference. On to Wikipedia:Tutorial! Wikipedia:Tutorial Michael S. Altus, PhD, ELS

Bbb23's advice is quite correct. I can add one suggestion from my early days of editing. You can always go to the talk page for an article start a thread explaining what you did in a given edit. Seven years ago the edit summary field didn't have enough room for a long explanation so I would leave a note on the talk page trying to explain what I was doing. As already stated this isn't a requirement but it might be of help to you one day. Cheers and best wishes as you continue to learn how to edit here at WikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 03:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best way I know of to do this is with a dummy edit, with an edit summary such as "forgot on last edit to leave summary... fixed link, etc." The uswefullness of this will decrease the more there are intervening edits making your new edit summary not appear in the history nearby to the blank edit. This same method is a good way to provide copyright attribution where someone, for example, did a merge but failed to provide mandatory attribution in the edit summary. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brackets in a plain link reference "breaking" the reference[edit]

Hello all. There is a reference in the Lolo Jones article that appears to be broken because of brackets in the url. I tried to fix it with Google's link shortener, but the shortened link was on the spam blacklist. I then tried changing the plain link ref to a cite web template in hopes it would fix it, but the link was still broke. Any thoughts on how to fix this?--Rockfang (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the brackets in the url to character encoding: &#5b; and &#5d; Is that giving the page you were expecting? —teb728 t c 04:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is not the correct page. Thank you for the attempt though.--Rockfang (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried again with percent encoding: %5b and %5d Is that the page? —teb728 t c 06:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Cite web#URL -- Gadget850^talk 06:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed the correct page teb728, thank you. Thank you for the link Gadget850. Apparently I should have read a bit more of the Cite web documentation. :) Rockfang (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding interwiki links[edit]

I know I've done this is the past - but at present I can't find how and where to add these in this and the Italian Wikipedia. Specifically, for a page, L'Indice dei libri del mese, that has the identical page name in both languages' WPs but isn't interwiki-linked in either. I did look in the English WP to bypass the Visual Edit and go to the source code (which I strongly prefer), and also tried looking at the Edit version of pages having these links so I could copy the syntax (which I've forgotten). What to do, please? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ETA - I've tried in both directions, and I suspect the incompatibility is that the page name is italicized here in the English-language WP but not in the Italian. They seem not to recognized that it's the equivalent page.-- Deborahjay (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deborahjay. We have migrated most interlanguage links to a companion site called Wikidata. You can still add interlanguage links in the normal way and a robot will then migrate them there. That way is to add at the bottom of a page in brackets the language code for the Wikipedia you are linking to then a colon followed by the exact name of the article at the other language. So at the English Wikipedia, you would add [[it:Exact Name of Italian article]] and at the Italian Wikipedia, [[en:Exact Name of English article]]. If you wanted to use Wikidata though, you would look to the interlanguage link menu on the left hand side of the page and click on the link at the bottom that says "Edit links". Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I see you successfully added the links to Wikidata two minutes after your initial post, but then added your follow-up a few minutes later still indicating it appeared not to be working. For that reason, I suspect that either there was a lag before it showed up in the article, or you were looking at a cached version (see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache). By the way, when a title is italicized, that does not affect what the actual title is, so it would have no affect on interwikis. All titles are non-italicized. The italics are just a display hack, done in various ways, such as adding the template {{Italic title}} or through certain infoboxes that contain code to change the display.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I can recall is that each attempt returned some sort of error (?) message, possibly "unable to ..." - and being unfamiliar with the process, I read this as FAILURE and posted here. Now what I don't see is the date/time of the change: neither in my User contributions nor the page's Revision history. Query: now that I've set my Preferences: Editing to remove Visual Edit (which I tried once and already loathe), will I add interwiki links as before, or is this change unrelated to VE? -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that when you clicked the "edit links" button you were transported to that separate site I mentioned, Wikidata? So you would have to look to your edit history there to find the actual change you made. If the error messages you mention were here using normal editing while trying to add the interlanguage code in the old way, I have no idea, and you would need to to reconstruct more about what the actual error message was and what you did to invoke it. If it was here using the Visual Editor then I'm not surprised you had problems since that thing is bug upon bug except for basic editing. Anyway, VE is totally unrelated. Adding interlanguage links is now done through Wikidata (which is unrelated to VE), but as I mentioned in my first response, adding them in the old way will still work but a bot will migrate any links you add to Wikidata.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor[edit]

Wikipedia now seems to offer "VisualEditor" to edit the rendered form of an article directly. Is there some way to turn it off so I could get editing the wiki source text as default? JIP | Talk 13:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JIP. Go to the gadgets tab of your preferences → Editing section, tick the box labeled "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" → Save.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did I trigger all-red text?[edit]

In the following diff the before and after pages look different. In old version the bottom edit is in red, while in new version it is in black. How did I trigger all-red text? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed an incorrect  tag further up the page. I can't explain why it had precisely that effect, though. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Check the table above that with red text; it contains:

<font color="red">Both buttons pressed (Invalid case)<font color="black">

The  tag is not properly closed; it should just be .

I haven't dug into this, but I'm guessing some interaction between the table and {{od}} that exposed the unclosed .

And  is obsolete: use {{font}} instead. -- Gadget850^talk 13:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That was a weird one. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing parameters in a template call[edit]

I want to edit parameters in a template call, but they are not visible in the source, which just says {{cite foo}}. Thank you for your advice. Vzeebjtf (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to have to give specifics. Do you want to edit the paramaters in the template itself or on the page where the template is used? -- Gadget850^talk 18:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your contributions, you seem to be referring to the article Astor Opera House, which uses {{cite gotham}} and {{cite AIA4}}. These are pre-built citation templates with fixed paarameters. I suggest to use a blank citation template from WP:CT and copying values for the parameters over as needed and fill in the rest by hand. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad -- I expressed the problem wrong. I want to change the values in {{cite gotham}} on the page where it is used. Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not possible using this template. The values are hard-coded inside the template markup, so you can only use this template with those pre-defined values. Is there a specific need to use those templates? Otherwise the easiest solutions seems to just paste a blank citation template from WP:CT and fill in the desired values. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks a lot! Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would editing my Wikipedia profile/bio violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy? Frank Sanello[edit]

Re: Frank Sanello Frank Sanello's bio/profile/article on Wikipedia

Help! Somebody posted a very flattering profile about me, Frank Sanello, on Wikipedia in 2011, I think. My mother couldn't have written a nicer profile! Whoever wrote the profile, thank you, thank you, thank you... However, the formatting and citations in my profile are either messed up or missing. I could fix the formatting errors (I think) and provide secondary sources to authenticate what read like opinions or original research in my Wiki profile such as these passages, which I suspect is why Wiki Talk said this article may contain original research: Below is an excerpt from my Wiki profile which I think the ! note at the top of my bio flags: "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. "This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2011) This article possibly contains original research. (October 2011)" I suspect this is the passage that generated the "original research" flag: "He [Frank Sanello] once sweated [poor usage or style] in the jungle outside Puerta Vallarta, Mexico, for two days, waiting for Arnold Schwarzenegger to grant him an interview for United Media. The former California governor at the time was a major box-office star. The actor was shooting Predator (1987) when Sanello showed up on the jungle set [in 1986] to conduct the agreed-upon interview [agreed upon by the movie studio, not by Schwarzenegger, although he eventually agreed. If he hadn't, the studio would not have paid my airfare and put me up at the same allegedly luxury hotel, Casa de Oro, the cast and crew stayed at. The Wiki article about Predator [(1987)] notes that everyone on the set got diarrhea because the "luxury" hotel had "sewage problems." I was on of the people on the set with a bad case of the turistas. A torrential downpour turned the day’s shooting into a disaster, and Schwarzenegger was too distracted to be interviewed. Sanello camped out on the set in the jungle for two days until the rain stopped, and Schwarzenegger spoke with him." The above passage is probably why the ! note at the top of my profile says "This article possibly contains original research. (October 2011) The information appearing in a column I wrote for United Media, which Wiki references in my profile and confirms I wrote for them. Unfortunately, United Media hasn't archived the article/interview I did with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the jungle outside Puerta Vallarta that would serve as a primary or second source, I think. How do I or you, preferably, provide authentication for my interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger? Here is more "original research" that you probably won't allow because it may be "unduly self-serving" per Wiki's BLP guidelines...makes me sound like an egomaniac: Schwarzenegger wouldn't grant me an agreed-upon interview because it was raining in the jungle just outside Puerto Vallarta in and he was distracted by the problems caused by the downpour. When the sun finally came out, everyone on the jungle "set" took off his/her studio-issued ponchos (raincoats). As soon as I took my poncho off, Schwarzenegger, who had been avoiding me for two days while the movie's unit publicist begged him to talk to me, yelled from about 10 yards away, "Now there's a man who works out!" I was a non-competitive bodybuilder at the time, and that's probably why Schwarzenegger did the following: Whereupon, he walked over to me, I pulled out my tape recorder, and we talked for about an hour while the camera crew set up lights, etc. I got my interview and flew back to California the next day. That story is definitely original research because I didn't put the incident in the article about Schwarzenegger I wrote for United Media because UM did not accept "first person" journalism. UM reporters/syndicated columnists like me were not allowed to refer to ourselves in an article or column. I think my column was called "In Hollywood." I last wrote for UM almost 20 years, and I don't remember much about my two decades-long work for them because I was freelancing for many other outlets, including the Chicago Tribune, LA Times, NY Times Syndicate...all of which my Wiki profile cites. I can create a secondary (?) source citation by posting the incident about Schwarzenegger and me on RedRoom.com, http://redroom.com/ a site for published authors. Some of Red Room's contributors/members are Salman Rushdie, Maya Angelou...and me. :) Is Red Room considered a reputable source? It's not an org but they don't pay writers for articles, short stories, etc. I write for Red Room because they don't censor my articles with bots, and they let me write anything I want within reason. If I write an article for Red Room about why Schwarzenegger granted me an interview, can I use the article's URL as a citation in my Wiki profile? Or is that in violation of NPOV and BLP? Is Red Room a reputable, citable source? I can't tell from Wiki's guidelines about what types of sources are legitimate (.orgs, for example) and which are not (obviously Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn). Another issue is an opinion lacking citation in my Wiki profile. However, I can provide a reliable, published history of China that authenticates the following opinion in my profile: "Sanello’s nonfiction books have been distributed internationally. Most prominent of those works is The Opium Wars: The Addiction of One Empire and the Corruption of Another (Sourcebooks, 2002).[5] The Opium Wars' publication in China was unusual in that Chinese scholars and government watchdogs typically reject Western accounts of their history as biased and Eurocentric. The book attempted to offer a more balanced account of the two conflicts fought between Britain and China in the mid-19th century. The term "unusual" above sounds like an opinion to me, but here's a published source that proves the statement is not an opinion: Are Western Historians biased? on CHINADAILYFORUM bbs.chinadaily.com.cn or http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-553884-1-1.html Can you insert the authentication provided by CHINADAILYFORUM http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-553884-1-1.html of the "unusual" claim in my Wiki profile? I don't want to violate Wiki's NPOV policy by inserting the citation myself. I'm afraid Wiki will challenge my profile and delete it if I edit the profile myself. Please let me know your thoughts about this. I'd also like to expand the external links at the bottom of my Wiki profile. Right now, Wiki only lists Sanello, Frank (January 6, 1989). "Is Tv Trivializing The Holocaust?". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 30 January, 2013. That is only one of 97 articles I wrote for the Chicago Tribune. I can supply you with external links to other, better articles I wrote for the Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Orlando Sentinel (I wrote an article about a press conference held on the soundstage of Star Trek on Paramount Studios' back lot for the Chicago Tribune, which sold it to the Orlando Sentinel...without paying me an additional fee. :( Here is a link to all my Chicago Tribune articles. Chicago Tribune Archives, articles by Frank Sanello Am I being pushy when I ask you to include this link instead of just the link to my article in the Chicago Tribune, "Is TV Trivializing the Holocaust?" http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/24518849.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+6%2C+1989&author=Frank+Sanello.&pub=Chicago+Tribune+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&edition=&startpage=1&desc=Is+TV+trivializing+the+Holocaust%3F Yet another problem with my profile is the incorrect formatting of a link to a Los Angeles Times article that proves I won the $30 million libel and "interference with economic/business relationship" suit. This is the current, incorrectly formatted citation in my profile. The text preceding the citation also represents poor usage or style which I would like to fix: "In 1999, Sanello was sued by Sharon Stone’s former law firm after his biography of the actress, Naked Instinct, quoted a member of the firm discussing Stone’s unusual love life. The actress didn’t sue but her firm, which she fired after the bio came out, sued Sanello for $30 million for libel and interference with a business relationship. A jury determined that the author had not libeled the law firm. http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/10/local/me-21004) The firm of attorneys did not take kindly to losing this landmark case. The headline in the LA times [the LA times reference should be in italics, LA should be written out as Los Angeles] read "Law Firm Loser in Flap Over Stone Bio" http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/10/local/me-21004 As you can see, the formatting and lack of italicization of LA Times needs to be fixed. I'm afraid to do that because it could be another violation of NPOV. Is it? There are many more formatting, style, usage and grammar errors in my Wiki profile, but I've already overburdened you with this lengthy query. I am sorry about being so verbose. I'm especially concerned about uncited material and other "opinions" I can authenticate with reliable, published, reputable secondary sources like the Chicago Tribune, People Weekly, and RedRoom.com, if Red Room is considered reputable. Some Wikipedian kindly inserted this information about my books, which is why I'm obsessed with the questionable usage and style in my Wiki profile: "...OpenLibrary.org: "Reel v. real - how Hollywood turns fact into fiction" (http://openlibrary.org/books/OL3944623M/Reel_v._real), (WorldCat link (http://www.worldcat.org/title/reel-v-real-how-holywod-turns-fact-into-fiction/oclc/488435063)), which notes that his Reel v. Real is part of the library collections of Yale, Harvard and Temple Universities. The MLA (Modern Language Association) APA (American Psychological Association), Turabian and the Chicago Manual of Style have cited his work." I presume those style manuals cite my work as examples of good style rather than bad. :) Please let me know how or if I should proceed with these issues. Thank you so much for putting up with this discursive query! 207.200.116.65 (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)FrankSanello 207.200.116.65 (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Frank SanelloFrankSanello (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Frank Sanello[reply]

Post to the article talk page. Please try to more succinct there than your comments here have been. Please do not edit the article yourself because you have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong suggestion: use one section (see the "new section" tab) for each change you want to make to the article, each question you have about something in the article, and each point you want to make regarding source/documentation. If you have to post 20 times, that's fine, though it probably best to start with the two or three most important issues, let editors review those, then post a couple more. I suggest posting that way because if your post is long and rambling, there is a good chance that no editor here will take the time to sort things out. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COVER-UP; DEAD BOSTON BOMBER?[edit]

WP:NOTFORUM

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

On the night of the deadly shootout, I saw the oldest Boston bomber on live TV (ABC?) lying on a Watertown street in the "prone surrender position".He was on his stomach, his arms were outstretched, ankles crossed and his head was facing left toward the police (who were staying away from him) his eyes closed. He looked very peaceful and There was NO blood or sign of trauma; but for the 5 minutes I viewed him lying there he never opened his eyes or moved. I thought he was dead. BUT he had to be alive to assume the "surrender position" on the ground. People just don't fall dead and wind up in that ordered position? There was NO BLOOD or signs of trauma as in the "leaked" photo of his dead body. NO one has explained this live video and to this day, I don't know if he was dead or how he got into that "surrender" position?

PM Jones

Question regarding registered vs unregistered editing[edit]

In general, when editing Wikipedia articles, is it acceptable for registered editors to discriminate against unregistered ("IP") editors when determining whether the edit itself is merited? I ask because this has happened to me several times, most recently in an edit summary which reads "Reverting edit by IP user ..."

Please do not suggest that I should create an account, as I have tried that in the past with less-than-desirable results. IMO, whether a legitimate, good-faith edit was made by a registered or unregistered user should have no effect on whether it stands.

--96.32.138.125 (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have no way of saying whether the editor "discriminated" against you because you are unregistered. I certainly wouldn't assume it from that edit summary. Maybe they just didn't want to copy your IP adress and thought it was clear who they referred to. However, like it or not, a lot of experienced editors would probably say that on average, an edit by an unregistered user is more likely to be problematic than an edit by a registered user. There are lots of great unregistered editors and awful registered editors, but if the only thing you know about an editor is that they are unregistered then it's easy to start out being a little more sceptic about their edit. See Wikipedia:Why create an account?#Reputation, communication, and more successful edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Without providing the Help Desk with a specific edit that you have a question about, it's difficult to provide a specific answer to your question, because there may be other aspects to the reversion that may not have been properly explained. At face value, "Reverting edit by IP user..." suggests about as much discrimination as "Reverting edit from Doe123". Broadly, as long as the edit conforms to our established guidelines (for example, isn't original research, is supported by reliable sources, conforms to the manual of style, includes an edit summary, etc.), then there's no reason why an IP user's edit should be de facto reverted. However, (speaking anecdotally), the rule I observe casual editors accidentally breaking the most, is Wikipedia's policy on original research. Good faith should be assumed of you, but a good faith edit that contains original research or some other problematic content, will likely be reverted. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with discussing edits that "you" made from an IP address is that it might not have been you. IP addresses change, often without any choice by the editors at those addresses, hence something coming from a particular IP address today may not be from the same person who was using it yesterday. I regard it as important to highlight that something is from an IP address for that reason (along with others including those mentioned above). HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, we can make no intelligent comment on anything here, because we have no idea if the characterization you have provided regarding the events you have been part of is in any way accurate. That is, what we have is your description and opinion about how an event went down. What we don't have is the actual event itself to judge for ourselves if your description of it is accurate. If we don't even know that, we can't even know if the problem you claim exists does exist. If you want us to comment on the appropriateness of a specific event, please provide diffs for that event. --Jayron32 05:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example; from the discussion at Talk:Hartsfield–Jackson_Atlanta_International_Airport#Wikilinked_Destinations: This diff where a registered user warns an unregistered user that he/she is violating the 3RR rule. The unregistered user points out that he/she received warnings while other users making similar edits did not (and also that the 3RR rule was not actually violated). The registered user responds, in part, "Besides that, I'm against editing Wikipedia anonimously." [sic] diff

The more recent incident that prompted this question is this diff. As far as I can tell, the registered user, when determining whether the edit should stand, used "Reverting edit by IP user" in his edit summary, indicating that he likely used the fact that a certain edit was made by an unregistered user when determining whether to revert.

I believe there are others but those are the two that I can come up with right now.

But the main question as far as I am concerned, is whether it is acceptable to, in general, use the registered/unregistered status of an editor when determining whether to revert an edit by that editor.

Thanks --96.32.138.125 (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "reputation" being a reason for creating an account, I have noticed that there have been instances that certain registered users have been permanently banned for making a few edits that some other editors have disagreed with, even though the vast majority, i.e. 99.999% or more, of their edits were legitimate and valid. Some of us simply wish to improve the articles of WP because we recognize it is one of the most important websites in the world, without getting caught up in all the bureaucracy, politics, allegations/accusations/etc. of improper editing, and all the other stuff that happens just because some registered user's opinion is different from another's. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, IP editor. Looking at the edit you say prompted your question, I don't see anything inherently wrong with the edit summary: "Reverting edit by IP user that is not relevant to the topic of the paragraph." The issue doesn't seem to be that you are an IP user, rather that (as is clearly expressed) your edit "is not relevant to the topic of the paragraph." I don't know enough about the subject to agree or disagree, but the "Reverting edit by IP user" aspect doesn't seem to be the driving cause. I think you might be reading more into this reversion than is warranted. Sometimes a friendly thing to do is to phrase it more like, "Reverting good-faith edit by IP user" but there's no rule for that. So the user said what he said, and that's that. As for the other warnings you've brought up, those were from February 2012, so there's not much anybody could do now to positively influence THAT exchange. I think the short answer is: If your edits are solid and are on point, nobody should be automatically reverting you JUST because you don't have a user account. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]