Talk:10,000 Days (Tool album)/Archive 1

message: *All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen Talk 22:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>'''

message: I guarantee this won't be the name of the album.  Tool likes to fuck with us. BluesX 18:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Album name

message: ...But most Tool fans know to take things with a grain of salt, especially if it involves an album name months before the release date. I say it might be a hoax and I vote to delete the page until things get official with the record company.Kpwa gok 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Post rumors here. Please no speculation on the article page unless it is contained in a specific section for rumors/speculation.Kpwa gok 00:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *OK, I created a rumors header for everyone to put rumored info or speculation before the info is more widelt released or known.  Kpwa gok 20:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This info comes from the official Tool Web page... 

message: If not for the album, at least something that has to do with Tool. The domain 10000days.com was registered February 15th, while the news about the album name was posted at toolband.com March 3rd. -- drange 13:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 10,000 days could be the real title 

message: I have listed this article on articles for deletion to see wether this article should be deleted or not. If anyone of you guys think this article should be deleted (since it's another hoax), please feel free to vote here. Mike Garcia 23:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's vote! 

message: We should probably just decide and leave it, because I keep seeing edits going back and forth as to whether 10,000 Days is the fourth, fifth, or sixth album. It's:
* the sixth total album
* the fifth studio album (Opiate was recorded in a studio)
* the fourth full-length album (Opiate was an EP)
How do you want to call it? Kane5187 19:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't care that much, although if pressed, I'd stick to fourth full-length studio release. I think this dispute consumes too much time for my taste, considering what else could be accomplished in the meantime.- --Johnnyw 19:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean and I agree with you, but it'd be nice to set it down just so that it doesn't keep getting reverted. Kane5187 20:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth / Fifth / Sixth album 

message: There are a few songs on morpheus that say their from 10,000 days.  One is called Vicarious, which is the first track on the new CD.  I'm normally very very skeptical about leaked tracks, but this one sounds legit.  It really does.  It doesn't sound like Adam's normal gear that he uses, but the Tool style is definitely there and you can hear some whispered vocals in the background that sound like they could be Maynard.  There are no audible lyrics, but it sounds like it could be a first track on a Tool record.  What do you guys think?
There is another track I found claiming to be "Rosetta Stoned".  It couldn't be more fake, don't even waste time on it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jombage (talk • contribs).
:I don't want to disappoint you, but the article talk page should relate around how to improve the article only, or to solve disputes only, since this ain't a board. To give you at least some feedback: I'll restrain myself and wait until I remove the wrapping and listen to the entire album with the stereo on full throttle ;) --Johnnyw 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Johnnyw in terms of waiting until I know it's authentic Tool I'm listening to, but I'll be very interested to ask you in two months if the tracks you were listening to now were indeed from the real album. Kane5187 14:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  songs on morpheus 

message: It may be worth noting the other meaning for the names of some of these songs in a trivia section or something. For example, Jambi is a province of Indonesia, and the Lipan Apache are a Native American tribe. The Rosetta Stone is a granite stone found in Egypt, which provedcrucial to the deciphering of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Viginti Tres is also means twenty three in latin (see Wiktionary and search viginti and tres seperately).Amazonis 10:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. --Johnnyw 12:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe just wikilink them in the tracklisting for now (as has already been done with Rosetta Stoned and Hofmann). Since we haven't heard the songs, we can't say for sure if they really deal with the topics that they seem to, but I think linking the titles is a good form of acknowledging that we saw the reference without trying to interpret it before hearing. Kane5187 14:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be wary about wikilinking before actually hearing the songs.  "Jambi" could just as easily refer to Jambi the Genie from Pee-wee's Playhouse, you know? - Rynne 13:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't wikilinks always link to articles related to the actual song, not the the assumed (and unsourced!) reference?? --Johnnyw 13:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not neccessarily. Point taken on the "unsourced" issue, but for example, on one of the records from NOFX's 7" of the Month Club, there's a song called "I'm a Huge Fan of Bad Religion." In that case, I think the wikilink helps comprehension and can be very important. Kane5187 20:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahh...complications. Johnnyw's probably right -- without hearing the songs, we really can't say what anything is about. The only wikilink I'd keep is Rosetta Stone, because I don't think that that title could possibly mean anything else. Kane5187 01:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of Track Titles 

message: This is just to warn/advise everyone that there was an edit I reverted recently on this page that involved a link to Amazon.com's product page for 10,000 Days. Not only on the actual article, but in the talk section (they edited Kane5187's comment on this discussion page with the link as well). The motive of the edit was to add that ip's referral account to the link so they could generate commissions from people buying the album after clicking through Wikipedia. I doubt they'll return here, but their edit page showed a number of other unscrupulous 'vandalisms' with the same motive. In this article and in others you participate in, watch out for this sort of behavior. Hobophobe 19:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be user 24.199.123.229 who adds these links back in.  I have advised the Admins and recommended a block.  hellboy 09:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazon Links 

message: I've filed a request for page protection, because of the ongoin revert war. We need a clear and final decision on two subjects:
1. Album artwork
2. 4th, 5th or 6th release.
Both topics have already been discussed, nevertheless, anons as well as registered users seem to revert whichever way they feel like. Let's have a talk here with a clear vote one way or the other to quiet things down and make this page a little more stable. --Johnnyw 15:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addition. The admin handling my request says that protecting this page is a borderline issue. He asked me to try to get more editors involved in this discussion first. If the reverting goes on and this discussion is not fruitful, the page will be protected to enforce a fruitful debate. So let's get this issue settled and let's forget to protect our consensus afterwards vs 3rd party editors who do not know about this discussion and edit the article anyways.. --Johnnyw 10:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Comment, yes we can probably assume that it will be Volcano, but we are talking about using a legal exception.  To use this exception (see Wikipedia:Fair use) we are required to determine "3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;" which we do not know, as well as a "Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different) where possible.", which we cannot, because we do not know who the copyright holder is, since the album is not relesed yet. Additionally, I assert that if the album will be released and the artwork is NOT part of the new album, publishing the image will not even have been covered by fair use in the first place.. --Johnnyw 17:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment Okay, you're right. The source is obvious, but the copyright holder is Toolband.com/Tool if it's part of the hoax and Volcano if its really going to be used. I'm not sure if its substantiality to the album is going to be significantly changed whether it's the cover or inside-the-booklet artwork or a hoax used to, loosely put, publicize the album (because that's what all this stuff really does) - I think it'd be fair use in any case. But because of the prior point, I'm changing my vote.-VJ 19:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment Amazon.com states the label as Volcano. (EDIT: Interestingly, AMG lists "Tool JV.") Kane5187 19:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment This makes it a Volcano copyright. I think we can use that image now. Johnnyw? Dylan? Agreed?-VJ 11:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree. This comes quite close to what I was waiting for. Thanks for this discovery VJ! And as I thought, the artwork published by toolband.com wasn't really the cover of the album. So we could have made quite a mistake there.. Our doubts were justified. (But let's see if the band will find a way to make another u-turn in a couple of weeks ;) ). --Johnnyw 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment Oh, the discovery was entirely Dylan's. Unfortunately, since then, Blair has posted on Toolband that the cover was created for Amazon to have the band name and album name on it because Amazon required this (this sounds like bullshit to me - lots of albums covers on Amazon don't have text on them. Blair also said that the actual album cover will be that image without text on it . So I think the problem persists. The Toolband.com image can't be conclusively traced to Volcano, the Amazon image isn't the real cover according to Toolband. I guess we can still post the Amazon one, knowing that, according to Blair, it's unauthentic. -VJ 23:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment. Whoops, I am sorry. Ok: Thx Dylan! Back to topic: VJ you are probably right. The amazon image is not real cover artwork and the problem remains.. Although the 10,000days artwork on toolband.com will most likely be it, we can't be sure. To justify the use of copyright material in accordance with fair use I still believe we need to wait a little bit more. Maybe we could include our issue on Wikipedia:Copyright problems to get help? --Johnnyw 19:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment. I completely agree, VJ -- for a start, neither the Amazon page for Undertow nor the one for Ænima has anything in the way of a title or band name on it. Besides, I really don't think Amazon has the authority or time to be altering released album covers. Who decides what font to put it in? how big it is? where the titles are placed on the cover? I can't figure out the real advantage in Tool's duping us like this, but my money's on the cover that Amazon has. (I'm just commenting out of interest -- I realize this doesn't change any of the copyright issues). Kane5187 00:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment. I think the implication was that the band/label released the image to Amazon in the altered form because they required it, but really I dunno what's going on. Maybe everything'll explode and eventually get cleared starting on April Fools' day, in normal Tool fashion. -VJ 04:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment The copyright issues mentioned above. Images are subject to more copyright issues. -VJ 11:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment. There seems to be a misunderstanding in your statement. Artwork does not have to be "copyrighted" to fall under copyright laws. Images are automatically subject to US copyright laws unless explicitly released into public domain. Our concerns are not regarding that we could display a hoax image, it's that we don't know for sure who actually is the copyright owner and therefore, we cannot give full attribution to the copyright owner as required under the fair use clause of US Copyright Act. As soon as we could find a definite source regarding the copyright owners of the artwork, this whole debate would become obsolete imho. Some problems regarding this issue have already been mentioned earlier in this debate, e.g. that AMG and Amazon credit the album to different record labels, that if the artwork is a hoax, the copyright owner will most likely be the artist himself and not the label (or maybe the band?)  --Johnnyw 13:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *'Comment. Please do not vote in a matter such as this and go ahead with changing it anyway. The whole point of this vote is to resolve the issue; until that time the section of the article is to stay as is. Hobophobe 19:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *CommentYeah, sorry about that. I changed it before I checked the talk page and forgot to change it back. I'm a n00b :( Foolish Child 13:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: Sorry for jumping into the discussion so late, but what exactly is the problem with using the Amazon image? It is very likely that this will be the album cover art and the image can be attributed as a promotional render released by Volcano.  Fair use rationale can easily be established since this is the best image currently available to illustrate the album, as it is sourced, low-rez, and there are no better alternatives. The image certainly wouldn't take away from the commercial value of the record, and the possibility of a legal dispute is nonexistent. Even if ownership of the copyright is questionable, a brief mention of the hoax cover/not hoax cover controversy would in itself justify the usage. When the album is released the cover art could be replaced if necessary. I'm all for a cautious approach to fair use guidelines, but such a seemingly forced consensus against usage seems drastic and reactionary. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the problem is quite diverse. We have contradicting sources regarding the label, the image itself (whether toolband.com is right and every online shop in the world uses a "wrong" image and the image w/o the writings is actually the album cover), and - to go full paranoya circle - if the album is a complete hoax. All these doubts let us to decide against including the image until it is beyond doubt the album cover, considering the contradicting sources.. although I personally must say that the inclusion of the image on the German subdivison of Sony/BMG would be enough for me as to change my position regarding this subject. I believe we all tried to protect this article with this decision to prevent it from being spammed with dozens of different uploaded "Tool" covers, since we already had some haoxes being uploaded and inserted into the article. Including images with doubtful authenticity seems quite contradictory with the concept of fair use.  --Johnnyw 01:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet the difference between the two images is merely the printed text on the cover art. Some albums (example) are released with just the cover art printed on the outside face of the CD insert, the band and album name are then sometimes printed on the shrink wrapping. That's just an example, but the point is that these two images are not necessarily dissimilar, and it appears that the origins of either pic are fairly certain. I wasn't even aware that there was a controversy until I checked out this talk page, as both toolband.com and amazon.com had basically the same illustration. If the image is a hoax, it is still a hoax perpetrated by the band or someone directly associated with the band, lending it some validity (at the very least the pic could be used later to document the initial wave of hoax-y "misinformation"). I think that you're correct in considering the danger of this article being spammed with cover art (unfortunately I've also contributed to that, uploading and posting a redundant :Image:10kdays.jpg), but don't you think that this is happening because there currently is no album cover image? Surely even a perliminary version of the cover art would do more to deter spamming than a generic placeholder that's just begging for replacement. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 01:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree. We might as well use the image right now (the Amazon/BMG one), since its copyright is without question and, even if it is a hoax/slightly altered image (although the text being inserted on the shrinkwrap is very plausible), it's a lot better than reverting ten image adds a day. While there's still a lot of sketchiness regarding basically everything about this album and everything Blair and Kabir say, I'm getting really tired of hyperanalyzing everything and would like to just lay down and accept whatever bullshit they feed us until I'm holding the album. Should we have another vote? -VJ 02:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion basically changed less then 24h after the vote was closed when I found the "amazon" cover on the German Sony/BMG band-page, so surely I agree as well.--Johnnyw 10:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Artwork Issue Revisited

message: Please keep in mind the WP guideline that we cannot include any original research. This basically means that "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas." E.g. stating the obvious might be fine, but to include the unsourced idea that 10,000 days might refer to Jesus' life because someone wrote a book about that subject where 10,000 days are of significance is not only far fetched but cannot be included by ourselves. Anything that goes beyond collecting opinions and facts belongs on fanpages and into forums.. Johnnyw 11:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except anybody can post anything to fanpages and forums, and once somebody's posted something and others have agreed, it's okay to say "some suggest that..." and link to that fanpage or forum, if it's a well-known one. Just saying. -VJ 19:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if a couple of people post somehting on a board, it will hardly qualify as a well known and established speculation or rumor. It has to be published in some at least half way reputable or reknown source...: "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." or "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source." Other websites can only qualify as secondary sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet and below.  --Johnnyw 23:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed speculation about references 

message: Sorry to write this here guys but i didnt know where else. 10000 days is being sold earlier ie the 29th August at certain stores in Australia and i have heard even the 28th in one or two places in Germany. Some potential album art has also been shown anyways its all on this website here
http://www.fourtheye.net/. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.173.128.90 (talk • contribs) .
: Hi there, thanks for your contribution! If you need help on how to use the talk pages, take a look here: talk page guidelines. Regarding the release dates: Yes, this info was already included in the band article, and I have added the German release date to this article as well. It definitely IS the 28th. I will probably go to the prelistening party on April 27th and buy my copy that night. ^^ Regarding Australia, I really don't know, if anyone knows for sure, please feel free to add the info. --Johnnyw 09:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release dates 

message: The complete album has leaked onto the internet, and is avaible from several bittorrent-sites. Might be an idea for someone better than me in english to update the page with this new info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.213.252.22 (talk • contribs) .
:done! --Johnnyw 13:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The album has leaked

message: How can i tell what is real and who isnt being a dick?(Vance Clarend 23:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a hint: if it's dated before 4/18, it's definitely fake. -VJ 00:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake albums on torrent sites 

message: I noticed that the Rumours and Speculation section had been removed this morning (by anon).  I thought this was a little harsh since it's not released yet.  However I have tried to make some effort in seperating some useful facts from that info.  Feel free to add and/or re-categorise stuff within the article. hellboy 00:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, this whole article needs an overhaul. Most of what's rumored really isn't in question anymore. I don't think everything should be removed, just reorganized and a lot of stuff needs to be made past tense. I guess we can wait 'til May 2nd. -VJ 00:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought, pull out the facts relevant to the album, and put them in the right section, the maybe re-label the rest as Pre-Release Rumours and Speculation? hellboy 01:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. -VJ 05:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hm, well I copied it to my computer just fine and am listening to the mp3 copy as I type this (Angels on the sideline, puzzled an amused. Why did Father give these humans free will?). Volcano and Sony, as far as I'm aware, are not known for copy protection (whereas WB is... grrr), and I see no notice of copy protection in any of the credits, which they are required by law to declare. You may have just had problems copying it, as I don't think there's anything to suggest that this has been disabled. Silly monkeys, give them thumbs; they build clubs and beat their brothers down. -- Great song. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine is w/o any copy protection as well. On a side note: Sony IS known for the very destructive and fucked up copy protection XCP, known as the "Sony rootkit", used on 52 titles. --Johnnyw 08:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumours and Speculation 

message: I came across the page  this morning and discovered most of the article had been removed.  I don't disagree that the page needs some editing, but I though what had been done was overly drastic.  There also didn't seem to be a whole lot of justification for doing it, in either the comments or discussion.  hellboy 01:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks awesome -- thanks for doing that. Kane5187 15:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: I removed the reference to the character on Peewee's Playhouse. Tool's song CLEARLY does not refer to it in any way and it is of no relevance, even the link to the Indonesian province shouldn't be there in my opinion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.29.88.231 (talk • contribs) .
:Eh, the lyrics mention wishes and a king's mountain view. Both seem relevant to me. But I agree that it shouldn't be there - see below. -VJ 05:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jambi 

message: There was a reference to a US radio station that played an hours worth of 10,000 Dyas on the radio.  Seems like something that doesn't really need to be recorded here.  If there's any objections, speak up! hellboy 09:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio Station reference 

message: One thing that bothers me about this page, is the Possible Track References page.  According to the Verifiability Policy all of this section should really be deleted, as it's all speculation and personal view points with nothing in the way of citation.  Personally, while I don't mind the concept of getting some idea of what the songs are about, at the moment it's really just a dumping ground for people's theories on the tracks.  Interested in hearing what other people think on this topic....  hellboy 04:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've felt like it was disposable ever since the CD leaked. I wholeheartedly support getting rid of it. -VJ 05:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: A lot of those can probably go, but information that has been independently corroborated (e.g. AMG Glide magazine presented as fact the idea that "10,000 Days" refers to MJK's mother) should stay. Maybe Hofmann too if we can find something less circumstantial to support that it refers to Albert Hofmann. Kane5187 06:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything that is corroborated by a reliable source is fine, and meets with the verifiability policy.  As I said I'm all for having information regarding the songs background here.  Some of the other stabs in the dark, such as Jambi's relationship to the Indonesian Province should definitely go.  unless I hear some compelling reasons to keep some of that stuff, I'll start culling it over the weekend (unless of course someone beats me to it!) hellboy 06:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on. =) I am bothered by that section as well.. --Johnnyw 08:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the stuff about 10,000 Days is only worthwhile note, and it definitely warrants inclusion in the article. Since it's the title track, it can easily be done elsewhere without a "song references" section or anything of the like. -VJ 13:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, keep the somewhat relevant and cited interpretations. If toolband.com releases any new info, of course, this section should be deleted as soon as possible to keep it up to date, since it seems a lot of people only read this article to clear up speculation that they themselves have. Mary and Hoffman should be kept, Maynard commented on his mothers paralysis and the similarity between the length of it and the album title. As for hoffman, there was a lengthy post on toolband.com - which I have no idea how to track down - that was transcribed from a conversation that the band + friends had in a coffee shop when trying to remember parts of their last acid trip. After mentioning any strange occurance (well, more strange than the average acid phenomenon), Chris (the webmaster) would write "(Blame Hoffman)". It is very likely that the entire post was a work of fiction, but toolband.com is an official primary source nonetheless. -SB 12:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Track References - Delete? 

message: I'll try to look up more information and expand that section later.  I might make a section about interpretation surrounding the album, although being such a new release, details are tight.
I realize that some of what I posted is speculation at this point, but I will look for references later.  If I can't find any, I will reword the section.  The information about Undertow is factual, but technically, its significance is speculation.
If anyone would like to expand that section or post more interpretation (with sources!) please do so.
Leopold Bloom 03:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't see the point in having anything about song synchronisation without some sort of corroboration with the band.  Endless speculations and citing of coincidences is not really what Wikipedia is about.  I think we should just stick to the facts.  hellboy 06:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the content here, because I do not want to be that harsh and remove it w/o discussing it, although I must admit that I would like to. Independent blogs are not primary sources (obviously) and not qualified as secondary sources either. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources before delving into the subject matter any further. Considering that original research cannot be published, this section will probably have only the slightest chance of ever appearing on WP, considering that almost all sources that qualify as reputable sources do not concern themselves with such interpretations. And how does one verifiy if this is true? Wikipedia:Verifiability crosses my mind.. Since the band will never come up and tell the whole story of an album as they see it (wasn't one of the main points of Tool to make up your own mind??) one never will... This applies to Lateralus as well, as far as I am concerned.. a lot of rather dubious unsourced information has been collected there.. let's not make the same mistake again and keep to the facts. --Johnnyw 09:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the synching of songs 

message: Substituted at 14:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment