Talk:List of long marriages
This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Family and relationships (defunct) | ||||
|
Longevity List‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Longest marriage
If you google Bakeman, it says he was married 81 years and married at a much more believable 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.194.140.19 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true, but there is still no conclusive evidence for this at all, so it will remain "91" at least for the time being. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- There is evidence against "91", but as normally Wikipedia is ignoring scientific facts. --2003:74:CD2B:4077:9019:9117:C0D4:3278 (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is at least as much "evidence" for as well as against "91", hence. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Since Bakeman's entry isn't supported by a single reliable source (unless you count findagrave.com, which is primary at best), the entry should simply be removed. Pburka (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- There is at least as much "evidence" for as well as against "91", hence. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is evidence against "91", but as normally Wikipedia is ignoring scientific facts. --2003:74:CD2B:4077:9019:9117:C0D4:3278 (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Yang Shengzhong and Jin Jifen
There are some articles online about them celebrating their 90th on 16 December 2011, and they seem to be from reputable sources. http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2011/12/16/Chinas-oldest-couple-hit-90th-anniversary/27111324061828/ Not sure if they're still living, but it would at least put them on the longest overall list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:9780:A05:8069:A30E:96EE:A631 (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- That was almost five years ago now, so it's very improbable indeed that they are still alive. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- What's the criteria to be included in the list of living people on this page? Hopefully it's something more objective than one editor opining that they're probably dead. The distinction between living and dead in this list is highly problematic, as very few of the people are notable in their own right, so their deaths are unlikely to be reported by secondary sources. Pburka (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Duranord and Jeanne Veillard
This article says they have been married since November 1932 (82+ years) and are both alive as of the end of February 2015: [1] Any verification? 96.255.218.185 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- That would be 83 as of this month, if both are still alive that is, but having been born in Haiti it's very difficult indeed to verify their claim. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- We don't need to verify anything, since it was reported by a reliable secondary source (USA Today). Our task as editors is not to verify data ourselves; that would be WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- So I also added them yesterday. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you! Pburka (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's my pleasure in fact! Extremely sexy (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you! Pburka (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- So I also added them yesterday. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- We don't need to verify anything, since it was reported by a reliable secondary source (USA Today). Our task as editors is not to verify data ourselves; that would be WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
This list contains the longest known marriages according to researchers...
According to the article, the contents are verified by "researchers". To whom does this refer? Most of the marriages seem to be sourced to news reports or to primary sources (e.g. findagrave). Are the researchers in question in fact Wikipedia editors? If so, this would seem to fall afoul of our prohibition against original research. Pburka (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- After 11 days with no discussion, I've been bold and rewritten this description to clarify that we don't rely on original research. Pburka (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources
Please note that a paid obituary published by a funeral home is NOT a WP:reliable source. Funeral homes publish whatever the family asks them to, and do not exercise any sort of editorial control. Please do NOT add information from funeral homes, or other paid obituaries. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Remove entry 9 (William and Nancy Fullingim)
Entry 9, for William Archibald Archer Fullingim and Nancy Ellen Nannie (née Watson) Fullingim, is problematic. It's supported by three references, but none of them are reliable. The first is a letter published in an advice column, where the writer asserts that the Fullingims were her neighbors and describes the length of the marriage. The letter appears to be published verbatim, with no effort to verify the author's claims. The other two sources are both Find a Grave, a site which publishes unverified reports from the public. None of these sources are reliable, so we should not include this entry (unless a reliable source describing the length of their marriage can be found). I propose to delete the entry. Pburka (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- As no one has objected, nor have any sources been provided, I've commented out this entry. Pburka (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Long marriages, or longest marriages?
The title and the lead say that this is a list of people with the longest marriages and, indeed, a number of the longest ones are described by reliable sources as being either the longest in the world (of those still living at the time), or the longest in a particular region. But many of the others are simply long marriages, and we have no way of verifying that there aren't longer documented marriages which we're simply not aware of. This list should either be limited to marriages which are described as 'longest' by reliable sources, or we should rename it to List of long marriages. My preference is the former, but I'm comfortable with either resolution. Pburka (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- No opinions on this? If not, I will start pruning the list to only include marriages described by reliable sources as longest in the world, longest in a region, or longest by some other criteria. Second, third, etc. longest should also count. I'll add a "notes" column to explain what kind of "longest" the marriage is. Pburka (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've started working my way through the list including details about what record each marriage set, based on the sources provided with the entry. Once I've finished, it is my intention to delete any rows which don't claim to have set any record, or which set only a local record (e.g. longest marriage in Louisiana). Pburka (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- But why not just at least keep the 100 longest marriages known and referenced in the media just for good measure honestly? Extremely sexy (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- They're not the longest marriages known. They're 100 long marriages found by Wikipedia editors. If we keep them, we should rename the article to reflect that these aren't longest marriages, but simply long marriages. Pburka (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't suppose that there are many others unknown, so that's simply untrue! Extremely sexy (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Why do you suppose that? It sounds like you're describing WP:OR. The key point is: if we don't have a reliable source claiming a marriage is a 'longest' marriage, we can't say that it is. Pburka (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't suppose that there are many others unknown, so that's simply untrue! Extremely sexy (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- They're not the longest marriages known. They're 100 long marriages found by Wikipedia editors. If we keep them, we should rename the article to reflect that these aren't longest marriages, but simply long marriages. Pburka (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- But why not just at least keep the 100 longest marriages known and referenced in the media just for good measure honestly? Extremely sexy (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've started working my way through the list including details about what record each marriage set, based on the sources provided with the entry. Once I've finished, it is my intention to delete any rows which don't claim to have set any record, or which set only a local record (e.g. longest marriage in Louisiana). Pburka (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I've commented out every entry for which I couldn't find even a vague claim of it being a record of some kind. I encourage other editors to try to find reliable sources supporting reinclusion of some of the entries I've removed. I intend to leave the list in its current state for a week or so, and then I'll remove the commented-out rows completely to make maintaining the list simpler. I also intend to further prune the list to remove some of the more dubious records ("Likely 2nd-longest married U.S. couple", "Surely one of San Diego's longest married couples", etc.) Pburka (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- After waiting more than a week I've deleted all the commented out entries. Pburka (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's a definite fact that a marriage of at least 80 years is very rare indeed (and 81 all the more!), so I will restore the list to 100 marriages and therefore change the title of the article as well, mind you: per your own request, i.e. to "List of people with the 100 longest marriages in the world ever known". Extremely sexy (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- What you're describing is original research. We have absolutely no way of knowing that those are the 100 longest marriages. If necessary, we can move this discussion to WP:NORN. Pburka (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's a definite fact that a marriage of at least 80 years is very rare indeed (and 81 all the more!), so I will restore the list to 100 marriages and therefore change the title of the article as well, mind you: per your own request, i.e. to "List of people with the 100 longest marriages in the world ever known". Extremely sexy (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Deduplicate lists
We currently have two lists in this article: the list of couples who are both living, and a longer list of all couples. The first list is largely a subset of the second, and living couples are already marked in the second list. Additionally, the two lists are inconsistent. Couples appear in different order, or may appear in one list and not the other. As the first list is redundant with the second, I propose to delete the first list. Having one list to maintain will make our task simpler. Pburka (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Pburka (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The first list is up to date, the second only updates with the most recent reports of their marriage. BebJush (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- This sounds like a useful tool for a research site, but it doesn't help a reader, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. We should just have one, unified list. Why can't the list be kept up to date? (Alternatively, the first list could be moved to a special talk or project page.) Pburka (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Unless someone comes up with a good explanation for why we need two lists, I'm going to delete the first list again. Pburka (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
"Sam(uel)"
This list uses what appears (to me) to be nonstandard notation for names. For example, "Sam(uel)" and "T(h)e(o)d(ore)". Is this compliant with WP:MOS, some external convention, or is it just made up? Pburka (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've changed them all to be more consistent and conventional. Pburka (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Child rape a Marriage?
Your top so called marriage is a man over 18 marrying a little girl barely 13. In many country's this would be child rape and not a marriage. These Indian Kiddie marriages where adult men rape little girls after giving the girls poor parents money for a so called marriage should not be considered valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.140.9 (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- I can't disagree with you that some of the marriages in the list are disturbing, and I'd like to see a more critical discussion of long marriages and the high number of child marriages among them (not surprisingly, people who marry at a very young age are more likely to survive long enough to set marriage longevity records.) However, this article is only a list of marriages. The right place for this information would be in a proper article, based on reliable sources. I'm not aware of such an article. Pburka (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Aley Thomas a 12 year old girl purchased from her parents. Another India rape marriage listed. She had not even started puberty when married. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.17.223.59 (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 10 external links on List of people with the longest marriages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130302014242/http://www.newschannel5.com:80/story/21390689/cookeville-couple-married-for-81-years to http://www.newschannel5.com/story/21390689/cookeville-couple-married-for-81-years
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081001150618/http://www.sj-r.com:80/time_out/x459459374/Couple-married-80-years-recalls-era-of-Depression to http://www.sj-r.com/time_out/x459459374/Couple-married-80-years-recalls-era-of-Depression
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140416174518/http://www.genealogieonline.nl/stamboon-royon-nieuwenhuis/I1377.php to http://www.genealogieonline.nl/stamboon-royon-nieuwenhuis/I1377.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716051115/http://www.shanghaidaily.com/nsp/Metro/2011/03/04/3+centenarian+local+couples/ to http://www.shanghaidaily.com/nsp/Metro/2011/03/04/3%2Bcentenarian%2Blocal%2Bcouples/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131018003119/http://mydigimag.rrd.com/display_article.php?id=425267 to http://mydigimag.rrd.com/display_article.php?id=425267
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120304005013/http://fantastico.globo.com/Jornalismo/FANT/0,,MUL1677838-15605,00-CASAL+CENTENARIO+COMEMORA+ANOS+DE+CASAMENTO+EM+MINAS+GERAIS.html to http://fantastico.globo.com/Jornalismo/FANT/0,,MUL1677838-15605,00-CASAL+CENTENARIO+COMEMORA+ANOS+DE+CASAMENTO+EM+MINAS+GERAIS.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120127154435/http://www.hojeemdia.com.br/minas/casal-centenario-comemora-80-anos-de-uni-o-1.394281 to http://www.hojeemdia.com.br/minas/casal-centenario-comemora-80-anos-de-uni-o-1.394281
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080703163106/http://www.henrykaye.co.uk/Weird-and-Wonderful-Wedding-Facts-2 to http://www.henrykaye.co.uk/Weird-and-Wonderful-Wedding-Facts-2
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120605201031/http://www.ldnews.com/announcements/ci_20240356/80-years to http://www.ldnews.com/announcements/ci_20240356/80-years
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130328075227/http://www.ldnews.com:80/announcements/ci_22850878/lebanon-county-couple-married-81-years to http://www.ldnews.com/announcements/ci_22850878/lebanon-county-couple-married-81-years
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Francisco and Paulina Garcia
As discussed above, this list should only contain marriages described as "longest" by reliable sources (not just a collection of long marriages found by editors). I'm having trouble finding evidence that Francisco and Paulina Garcia's 84 year marriage is a record of any kind, but it seems likely that it might be given its length. Can anyone find a source to support their marriage being some sort of record? (I did find this, but it's sourced to this page, so can't be used.) Pburka (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of people with the longest marriages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120421043007/http://www.cpubco.com/articles/2011/07/16/news/03.txt to http://www.cpubco.com/articles/2011/07/16/news/03.txt
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160205054357/http://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?id=yfsiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QM0FAAAAIBAJ&dq=81st-wedding-anniversary&pg=3373%2C4622431 to http://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?id=yfsiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QM0FAAAAIBAJ&dq=81st-wedding-anniversary&pg=3373%2C4622431
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Death dates and unreliable sources
Several (many?) of the entries on this list use unreliable sources for death dates. These are generally paid obituaries in newspapers or memorials posted on funeral home websites. WP:BDP applies to the people on this list, and, as very few of them are famous or public figures, we have to be particularly careful. We risk incorrectly reporting a person's death by relying on these sources. Since these people aren't famous, I think it's unlikely that we'll find reliable sources for their death dates in most cases. Per WP:BDP, we must remove the unreliable sources from the list. Without the sources, we must also remove the death dates. What should we do then? Do we leave the field blank for these people, or should we remove the column all together? (Removal is my preference; death is not directly relevant to a long marriage: it's just one common way for a marriage to end.) Pburka (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unless someone responds with a policy-based argument, I'm going to start deleting improperly sourced death dates in the next few days. Pburka (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've started removing unreliable sources and tagging unsupported death dates with {{cn}}. The situation is worse than I'd imagined. Many of the entries with death dates don't have any references from later than the purported death. We cannot have Wikipedia reporting the deaths of possibly living people without reliable sources! I think the safest way forward is to simply delete the entire lifespan column. I plan to do so within the next few days unless a compelling reason is put forth to keep it. Lifespans are not directly related to marriages, so I don't think it's essential for this list. Pburka (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Pburka (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've started removing unreliable sources and tagging unsupported death dates with {{cn}}. The situation is worse than I'd imagined. Many of the entries with death dates don't have any references from later than the purported death. We cannot have Wikipedia reporting the deaths of possibly living people without reliable sources! I think the safest way forward is to simply delete the entire lifespan column. I plan to do so within the next few days unless a compelling reason is put forth to keep it. Lifespans are not directly related to marriages, so I don't think it's essential for this list. Pburka (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 15 March 2016
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: move (non-admin closure). sst✈ 08:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
List of people with the 100 longest marriages in the world ever known → List of people with the longest marriages – Request restoration of original name. This page was recently moved to the current name without discussion or consensus. The moving editor improperly attempted to delete the resulting redirects, making it impossible to restore the name unassisted. Note that this topic is subject to discretionary sanctions, intended to discourage disruptive behavior such as renames contrary to consensus. Pburka (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Does the stupidity associated with longevity topics never cease? List of people with the 100 longest marriages in the world ever known -- let's see... "in the world" -- are there marriages on Mars? "ever known" -- is there a list of marriages which are not known, and if so, what would be the sources for those? EEng 04:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention of people -- are there marriages not involving people? EEng 00:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support, seems to be noncontroversial and should just be moved. Then again, how about List of the 100 marriages that seem like the longest ever known in this world or the next, bar none (thank God for divorce lawyers and such) or something. Randy Kryn 12:00, 16 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Shouldn't even be an article, since it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but if it must be then it should at least have a sensible name. ~ RobTalk 14:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're right -- another aspect of longevity stupidity. EEng 14:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to boldly revert the recent move because it clearly isn't even accurate. There are not 100 marriages in the list. We have a huge bias toward modern times, so these are likely not the longest "ever known". There was never any consensus for this move, so bold, revert, discuss applies. We should continue discussing, though.Ah, not possible due to the redirect. Of course. Bah. ~ RobTalk 15:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're right -- another aspect of longevity stupidity. EEng 14:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support with a big Plus 1 to Rob's point. Legacypac (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support the length of the list should not be in the title, unless there are several lists for the same thing. The length restrictions instead should be specified in the intro. We cannot list things we do not know, so what we know is implicit in all articles. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support clear case.--Zoupan 18:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Duration of the actual relationship
It would be interesting to see a list of couples by number of years the spouses have actually known each other, as opposed to having been married to each other. Many of the couples have achieved such long time spans simply by marrying at an abnormally young age, and that's not entirely consistent with the idyllic associations that Westerners have with the phrase "long marriage." Yes, I realize that such a list is probably unfeasible by unverifiability because there is no legal documentation of how long people have associated with each other informally, as opposed to having been married to each other. A case might, I guess, be made with other documentation, such as concerning past residence, border crossing, membership in educational institutions, other organizations, or familial relations (e.g., if they're cousins or adoptive siblings). 213.109.230.96 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- It might be interesting, but unless reliable sources have compiled such a list, it would be original research for us to create one ourselves, and thus contrary to Wikipedia policy. Pburka (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Our IP friend certainly has an, um, interesting contributions history [2]. EEng 23:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wanna psychoanalyze that? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'll pass, thanks. EEng 20:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wanna psychoanalyze that? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Our IP friend certainly has an, um, interesting contributions history [2]. EEng 23:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on List of people with the 100 longest marriages in the world ever known. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110714172220/http://www.newbernsj.com/news/guinness-95304-fisher-world.html to http://www.newbernsj.com/news/guinness-95304-fisher-world.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)