Instead, a separate Lua module, dedicated to wp:CS1 features, should be designated for well-controlled updates. Of course, any clever new features accepted for other styles, in time, could be copied into the wp:CS1 Lua module, if approved. In general, the Lua technology is a vastly different language system, where the stress testing of Lua has not been done to ensure support for 1. For example, I have seen Lua modules appear to "timeout" or go to sleep, to quit showing dependable results and say only, " Script error " no other message when used to process template parameters, perhaps based on a busy-load for the servers.
Until full-out stress tests can prove Lua will keep formatting cites, and not "get tired to take a nap", then it should be phased-in by limited-use templates, added within a few articles, each time, to allow for safer testing, little-by-little. When Lua reaches a level of solid reliability, then the Lua-based templates and original markup-based templates can be name-redirected to point to the same templates. Meanwhile, there are still plans to quicken the current markup-based wp:CS1 templates, to allow faster operation, but also support all the current parameters.
Also, there is the problem of Lua-experienced personnel, where some bug-fixes or proposed features might be delayed waiting for Lua updates, whereas the markup-based templates could be updated sooner by more people knowing the template markup language. Any other thoughts about the phase-in of Lua-based cite templates? Should this topic be a separate subpage of CS1 discussions? Please update the documentation or put it back. Good raise , 23 November UTC. Although it might clutter the TOC a little, I think that it would make the documentation more navigable.
I am specifically starting this conversation with the Template:Cite web in mind, but I think this would apply to other documentation pages for Citation Style 1 templates as well. Peaceray talk , 30 November UTC. There are only three differences between these two templates:. I would like to deal with questions here before I take this to formal TfD. The guidance at Help:Citation Style 1 Titles and chapters , the third sentence in title reads: Should consistently use title case or sentence case throughout the article, and should use title case unless Regarding "title case," for WP CS1 references, is that intended to mean "capitalize all words, regardless of part of speech"?
If not, which "rule" should it follow, based on the many examples at Title case Headings and publication titles. Thank You. If we just use WebCite, the advantages are that 1 its one stable link that the reader can click and it will always be there. Multiple links may confuse the reader. Example of WebCite:. They can be switched around using the 'deadurl' URL. An example of Cite Web:. Also the user may be confused seeing two links instead of one. I know Webcite has had some outages but its been online for most of the time.
So why should Cite Web be used instead of just WebCite? I know none of the available solutions fully solve the difficult problem of link rot so we're just making attempts to improve the chances that the reader gets to a working URL. I could not find a parameter for the translator, nor one for the original language of the book where the cited version is a translation. Often an analysis of authority can turn on the credentials of a translator, so I thought that it should be included in the citation.
All of the CS1 templates include a class such as book or video. Where is this used? I have no idea what this means. Even our little encyclopedia doesn't answer that question. Anybody know? I agree.
When a second or subsequent place is omitted, the omission may be indicated by "etc. Whiting, Thomas A. In Peter Schmidt. New York City: Rizzoli. Obviously, the chapter should be in the book, not in the editor! Probably something like:. In Maya. Peter Schmidt ed. Kaldari talk , 20 December UTC. Labajo, J. Body and voice: The construction of gender in flamenco. Magrini Ed.
Can be wikilinked to an existing Wikipedia article or url may be used to add an external link, but not both. If work is defined, then title is displayed in quotes, else displays in italics". A query was raised at WT:Citing sources that seemed aimed at cite style 1. See WT:Citing sources How to cite webpage subdivisions? Like in Template:Cite web. You can copy the code from the sandbox. Debresser talk , 1 January UTC. Can you update the template under Usage so that it has an access date of 2 January , or even make it update automatically each day so that it needn't manually be done?
Goodsmudge talk , 2 January UTC. Michigan legislature. Bwrs talk , 3 January UTC. In converting to template style, I've found that journal issue numbers are not showing up. Choor monster talk , 3 January UTC. The Review of Contemporary Fiction. I'm trying to cite this article from The Miami Times, Obviously, there is no original URL, so I put the the url in the archiveurl parameter.
What do I do in this particular case, where it an archive of an actual news paper? The citation comes out as:. Archived from [www. The "Anna Carin Zideks besked: Jag slutar" is properly linked to the archived page but the original page is rendered with the external link brackets instead of rendering a URL. Is there any way to reuse in the same article a named citation e. In other words, if an initial cite book citation includes all the appropriate metadata name, author, publisher, no. N2e talk , 12 January UTC. It is better. YMMV, but that is my take.
N2e talk , 13 January UTC. I couldn't believe the amount of reading this template makes you sift through to tell you how to use it. I would suggest someone go through and collapse some of the more "so what" parts of it, like most of the Examples section that seems to go on forever—old format, new format, old format, new format—is this really necessary? Would someone using this template for the first time actually care? Then there's a Deprecated sub-section that means nothing to people like me who don't care about what you used to be able to do. Again, they shouldn't even be given as an option to use, if they're not going to work in the end.
In the end, I basically ended up with the most simplest example: Title of the show, season, episode, boom, done. But I had to spend 20 minutes trying to figure all of that out. While I'm not "new" at Wikipedia, I found the information on this template to be massive and almost intimidating. Is it necessary to include the accessdate date when a publication date is available? I only use accessdate when a given webpage does not have a visible publication date, and almost never use accessdate when it does have one, since I think it's redundant, and can conceivably clutter up the citation.
Is there any guideline or consensus on this? Nightscream talk , 15 January UTC. Chicago does not therefore require access dates in its published citations of electronic sources unless no date of publication or revision can be determined from the source see For such undated sources--or for any source that seems likely to change without notice--authors are encouraged, as an additional safeguard, to archive dated copies, either as hard copy or in electronic form.
I have never understood Wikipedia's obsession with access dates. They rarely serve any purpose. Sadly, many editors apparently think that, if they put in an access date, they don't have to bother with the publication date. News references in particular should always show the exact publication date, which is much more important than the accessdate. I wish this could be spelled out more clearly. It looks MUCH more clear now! Just one suggested tweak, though: Could we flip them so that the season is given first , and then the episode? For one thing, hierarchically-arranged information tends to be displayed from the general to the specific.
For another, the widespread convention is for seasons to be given first. For example, among both sources and informal vernacular, "4. Lastly, putting the season first would emphasize, at a glance, that the episode given is not the overall episode number of the series, but only of that season. I don't have a lot of experience in changing templates, so how do we go about implementing this? Do we need a consensus discussion? Nightscream talk , 13 December UTC. Now in sandbox. Please review and comment. At Template:Cite book , the period should be after the quotation mark where it says: "Translated by John Smith.
If you use the dropdown to insert a "cite web" template, the vaguely titled "Work" field provides a "? Every time I see that, I ask myself "What the hell do they mean? Then, buried in documentation , I see that it means "Title of website". Which explanation is short, sweet, and readily understandable.
Can we please make the hint match the documentation? It now supports multiple archives with different dates as well as an archived series of pages with the same archive date. Can anyone say if they think I've cited correctly in this edit. My concern is that I accessed the book via the URL and not the physical book, and that perhaps this is not made clear enough from the cite. Either way, I think some wording should be added to the intro of Template:Cite book confirming how on-line book cites should be dealt with. Eldumpo talk , 3 February UTC. I don't think there is one single answer that is always best.
If the book is readily available and there is a fair risk that the website may disappear, it's probably better to do as you did. If the book is rare and the website is by a stable organization that seems prepared to make the website available for a long time, it might be better to treat the organization that runs the website as a republisher, the same way one might cite Dover Publications if one had read one of their paper editions if that is the edition you read. Jc3s5h talk , 3 February UTC. This makes sense to me because I believe it is correct practice to refer to a periodical by its title contemporary with the cited article, with a Wikipedia link provided if possible so people can connect that title to the current newspaper.
If there isn't a Wikipedia article, I believe it would be correct to write. In the case when there are multiple references in an article to the same former title again see the previous item , it would be nice if all the cites could be provided by the contributor in the same style and any repetitiousness could be suppressed automatically; but that'd just be an extra bonus feature, not a requirement.
There is nothing to let you indicate the copyright holder. Aarghdvaark talk , 28 January UTC. In a recent edit to Toronto subway and RT , I wanted to cite an advertisement and an editorial in old issues of a newspaper whose title has changed since they were published. To produce what I considered to be the correct appearance:. You truly can not include each and every parameter in those sets since they are intended to be copied and pasted. For example, you cannot use author and last in the same citation template, as only one can work. If anything should have the hobgoblin of consistency, it is citation templates and their documentation.
- HathiTrust Updates;
- Get PDF Ann Arbor Review of Books (30 May ).
- Building Projects | Ann Arbor District Library.
- New Cars Trucks SUVs in Stock | Germain Automotive Group.
- Bound For Trouble (The Bound Book 1).
- Timeline of Ann Arbor History and its Tragedies, Crises, Disasters and Shocking News.
- Navigation menu.
I have been considering a mini-doc section where the most-used parameters are explained. I am always open to suggestions, so if there are documentation issues, please start a new discussion with pertinent suggestions. Can anyone figure out why this chapterurl isn't linking? In Islam, Md. Shahidul ed. Calcium Signaling. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. This has been discussed twice before Archive 5: Agency, newspaper, and location and Archive 5: "Location" of newspaper vs.
Would someone please be so kind as to fix this? Or, is there another way to add notes to a reference? Note that this "note" is not the same as "quotes", where the quotes would be quoting something from within the reference and "notes" would be noting something about the reference. No cite templates will be affected during the first week.
Google Books - Wikipedia
This first week is only for installation testing, and editors have been asked not to change any live templates, in case Lua must be removed for adjustments. As confidence grows, then other cite templates can be changed to use Lua script. Meanwhile, it appears, with the planned Lua design, that a future change to any Lua-based cite will require reformatting of all 1.
Hence, we need to think about splitting the Lua-based templates, into test groups, such as:. Another issue: the Lua-based cite templates have been implemented to again include the COinS metadata, but the overall size and speed of the Lua-based templates will be much smaller and faster than when COinS data was added by markup-based templates. As format differences are fixed, then more cite templates can be switched to use the Lua-based variations. I haven't tested what effect fixing the typo would have, so I won't implement it — I'll leave it to someone who's more familiar with the templates.
Citations using cite web may have a date or an accessdate, or both, specified within each entry. The date may appear near the beginning of the citation if author details are present, or near the end of the citation if no author details are shown. In many cases there may be a mix of date styles such as February 27, and 27 February within a list of citations. When citation lists are presented as two or more columns, and the text of each citation therefore wraps to multiple lines, I don't find it easy to look through the list. I am sometimes looking for an entry with a particular date, or looking for entries before, or after, a particular date.
I often find I am looking at the "retrieved" date rather than the article date, or vice versa. The accessdate is dependant on the editor adding the entry, and is not a part of the data created by the author or publisher of the original article. I notice that several non-English Wikis have already overcome this difficulty in a very simple manner. They present the "retrieved" date and the preceding word in a slightly smaller typeface than the rest of the citation text but still quite a bit larger than the "subscription required" or "registration required" text that appears on some entries.
Digital humanities readings and resources
Could this simple change be considered here in the English Wiki? Please test but do not use in live articles. I tried to use editor-first and last - and they actually did work. Shouldn't they be included in the full set? Sorry, if I asked something stupid here! Zoli79 talk , 2 March UTC. They really shouldn't be listed there, if they are deprecated. This needs to be updated. It is very common these days that articles are published online before the printed version, often in the year before the printed version is published.
In such cases, an article may be cited using only the year and the digital object identifier , e. Then the printed version may be published in the following year , and Vol. Also after the printed version has been published, it's common to continue citing the article using the original first year of publication. How can this problem be solved when using this template? In such cases, the citation should ideally include both original year of publication ahead of print and the citation of the printed article.
The output has been tested for the Lua version to match the basic functionality:. The parentheses around the publisher name should probably be removed, as too many items in the curved brackets. Besides being a distraction for the reader, this usage often leads to inconsistent citation style, since other. We'd serve users better by distinguishing the purely scanned-image pdfs from those that have accompanying text. This applies not just to users of screen readers, but also to bandwidth-limited and mobile users.
A scanned-image pdf of a book can be tens of megabytes. What is the appropriate use of accessdate when a page is archived or dead? My initial feeling was that the accessdate applies to the archival page if it exists and otherwise to the "main" page which has been archived or is dead. Is there guidance somewhere? Can be hidden by registered editors. Shipman and Joan M.
Gregory, Amy Birks and Camille Salmond. Reich, Margaret, Jean P. Shipman, Scott P.
New Cars Trucks SUVs in Stock | Germain Automotive Group
Cameron, Abby L. Adamczyk, Joyce A. Stoddart, Wayne J. Adamczyk, Abby, Jeanne M. Le Ber and Jean P. Beaudoin, Denise E. Honisett, Jeanne M. Le Ber, Joyce A. Mitchell, and Jean P. Le Ber, Amy E. Honisett, Jean P. Shipman, and Joyce A. Shipman, Jean Pugh. LeBer, Jeanne M. Shipman Jean P.
Schwartz, Diane G. Blobaum, Jean P. Wright, Barbara A. Canevari, Irene M. Lubker, Margaret E. Hughes, Alan T. Williams, Shannon D. Jones, Jean P. Jones, Michael J. Selden, David Sweet, Carla J. Leisey, Monica, Jean P. Monica R. Leisey and Jean P. Turman, Lynne, Jean P. Lubker, Irene M. Williams, Barbara A. Wright, Catharine S. Canevari, Patricia Flanagan, Jean P. Kurtz-Rossi, Sabrina, Carla J. Funk, Jean P. Hammond, Patricia A. Shipman, Catharine S. Canevari and Barbara A.
Canevari, Jill S. Stover, Rachel Gyore. Canevari, Jean P. Stover, Rachel A. Canevari, Catharine S. Jones, Susan J. Phipps, Jean P. Shipman, Alan T. Williams, Barbara Allen Wright. Phipps, Cynthia J. Jones, Shannon D.
- Ive started, so Ill finish.
- The Book of Manifest: Hip-Hops Untold Story.
- Judicial Review of Commercial Regulation.
- The Complete Divorce Guide.
Shipman, Cate S. Seago, Brenda L. Hammond, and Jean P. Elliott, Heather Enderle, Shannon D. Jones, Joel B. Lammers, Susan J. Williams and Barbara Allen Wright. Simonson, and Deborah Frett. Watstein eds. Reference Services Review. Shipman, Kelly Near, Judith G. Robinson, Ruth M. Smith and Linda Watson. Daly and JoAnne K. Jones, Shannon, Jean P. Jones, Shannon and Jean P. Vol 32 1 , January , Rose, Denise C. Daly, JoAnne K. Henry, Catharine S. Canevari, and Barbara A. Canevari and Ramona H. Canevari, and Ramona H. Canevari, Coleman E. Daly and Barbara A.
Shipman, Jean and Michael Homan. Martin, Elaine R. The study website, which was fully accessible to intervention participants, also included graphical and written feedback about their progress toward their walking goals and contained pain- or activity-related motivational and informational messages. These messages included quick tips, which changed every other day, and weekly updates about topics in the news.
Back class materials, which included handouts about topics such as body mechanics, use of cold packs, lumbar rolls, and good posture, as well as a video demonstrating specific strengthening and stretching exercises were also available on the website. Finally, the website based e-community or forum allowed participants to post suggestions, ask questions, and share stories.
Topics discussed included mental health concerns, such as depression, strategies for walking such as walking the dog or interesting hiking trails, walking during hot weather and cold weather, and use of alternative pain management strategies such as massage.
Research staff participated in and monitored the forum posts as well as used the forum as a venue to generate competitions to encourage meeting walking goals. Usual care participants also received the uploading pedometer and monthly email reminders to upload their pedometer data. However, they did not receive any goals or feedback and their access to the study website was limited to completing surveys and reporting adverse events only.
Both groups were encouraged to report any health problems via the website, email, or phone. Four weeks after randomization and every 8 weeks thereafter, participants were prompted to complete a survey that asked about specific adverse events eg, heart attack and symptoms such as shortness of breath.
This information was closely monitored and participants with potentially serious health-related problems were contacted for further assessment and follow-up. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using a survey administered through the study website, or by a mailed questionnaire if the participant could not complete the computerized instrument. The prespecified primary outcome was pain-related disability at 12 months, as measured using the back pain-specific Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire RDQ [ 35 ], and a generic pain-related function measure from the Medical Outcomes Study MOS [ 36 ].
The RDQ, a item scale with higher scores indicating greater disability, has been widely used in back pain studies as a measure of self-perceived disability [ 35 , 37 - 39 ]. The MOS measure assesses the effect of pain on mood and behaviors as well as pain severity, with higher scores also indicating greater functional interference [ 36 ]. Walking, also a secondary outcome, was measured as the average number of steps per day over the past 7 days using step-count data collected through the pedometer uploads.
Other secondary outcomes included pain-related fear-avoidance, measured using the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire physical activity subscale higher scores reflect higher levels of fear-avoidance [ 41 ], and self-efficacy for exercise, measured using the Exercise Regularly Scale, with higher scores indicating higher levels of self-efficacy [ 42 ]. Additional data collected at baseline included age, gender, race, employment status, education level, relationship status, average household income, body mass index, and use of narcotic medications for pain management.
An administrative interface to the website provided data on the number of pedometer uploads and website log-ins. Sample size was based on the RDQ score as the primary outcome with a minimally detectable and clinically meaningful effect size determined as a difference of 0. To detect a difference of 0. The analyst assessing final trial outcomes was blinded to study assignment. All analyses were conducted using an intent-to-treat approach with participants analyzed according to original group assignment.
We conducted both complete and all case analyses to assess differences between groups in change in RDQ at 6 and 12 months. The complete case analysis was conducted using multiple linear regression models with adjustment for baseline values of the RDQ. The all case analysis was conducted using linear mixed-effects models, allowing us to use data from all participants and provide an unbiased estimate of the outcome, assuming data are missing at random [ 45 ].
For example, for our month analysis, RDQ scores at baseline and 12 months were used as dependent variables, with the primary independent variables consisting of an indicator for the intervention group and an interaction term of time by intervention group. Adjustment for covariates was only planned if an imbalance was found between groups at baseline.
As a pragmatic trial we did not screen based on RDQ scores, and some participants had baseline scores that were very low or even 0. Analyses were conducted using Stata Over potential participants Figure 1 were assessed for eligibility. Of those determined to be eligible, completed all of the steps in the enrollment process, with randomly allocated to the Internet-mediated intervention and to enhanced usual care.
Participants were predominantly male and white, with an average age of 51 years Table 1. The majority had completed some college, were either married or living with someone as a couple, and the mean body mass index was over None of the observed differences in baseline characteristics were statistically significant. At baseline, mean RDQ scores were greater than 9 in both groups Table 1 , indicating moderately severe back pain-related disability. The mean RDQ score at 6 months was 7.
RDQ scores continued to decline between 6 and 12 months in both groups and, while scores for the intervention group remained lower than for usual care, at 12 months these differences were no longer statistically significant. The MOS function measure also suggested greater improvements in function for intervention compared to usual care participants at 6 months Figure 2 , but none of the adjusted differences were statistically significantly different.
At baseline, pain severity was rated at approximately 6 on a scale by both intervention and usual care participants Table 1. Reported pain levels decreased in both groups at 6 months and remained lower than baseline at 12 months. The greatest change occurred between baseline and 6 months among those in the intervention group 6. Average step counts of slightly more than steps per day at baseline in each group increased at 6 months for intervention patients, with an adjusted difference between groups of more than steps.
By 12 months, however, the adjusted difference between groups was only steps. Exercise self-efficacy scores appeared to be the same or lower worse for both groups at 6 months, although the decrease was significantly less for those in the intervention compared to the control group, an adjusted difference of 0. This difference did not persist at 12 months. There was no difference between groups in the physical activity fear-avoidance scale at any time point. During the study, approximately adverse events were reported by participants by those in usual care and nearly by those in the intervention.
These events ranged from calluses to chest pain. However, no major study-related adverse events eg, heart attack were identified for either group. Improving management of chronic pain is a significant public health challenge and moral imperative according to a recent Institute of Medicine report [ 8 ]. More than 1 million adults in the United States have chronic pain, with low back pain being the most frequently reported condition [ 8 ].
Our findings show that an automated, Internet-mediated walking intervention may help to reduce back pain-related disability among patients with chronic back pain, although the benefits did not persist for the entire month study period. Improvement was greatest for those individuals reporting moderate to severe levels of pain-related disability at baseline. The functional results observed are generally similar to those found in other recent studies of non-invasive interventions, such as yoga and massage [ 46 , 47 ].
These studies also tend to show more rapid improvements for those receiving the intervention but with gradual improvements over time for those in usual care. Although we did not have a global health question and so are unable to isolate what proportion would qualify as definitely improved, this classification generally corresponds with other measures that suggest clinical improvement, such as return to work, less pain, improved function, and fewer physician visits [ 48 ].
Thus, we believe that our findings suggest that automated, remotely delivered interventions can be effectively used to promote a more rapid reduction in back pain-related disability and supplement care for patients with chronic low back pain. Further investigation is needed, however, to understand the characteristics of patients who had an early or enduring response to the intervention so that we may better target patients most likely to benefit and broaden the response.
Given the proven benefits of exercise for managing low back pain [ 19 ], a key component of the intervention focused on increasing daily step counts ie, walking. During the first 6 months of the study, we saw an increase of nearly more steps or one-third of a mile per day among intervention compared to usual care participants. Although not a statistically significant difference, we believe that even modest increases in activity can be beneficial. In fact, just up until recently when I had resumed walking. Although we do not know specific reasons for this lack of participation, these data suggest that additional strategies to keep people active and engaged may be needed.
This could include, for example, an online coaching component, which has been shown to improve adherence to other types of behavioral changes [ 47 - 49 ]. Our monitoring of adverse events showed a higher number of reported events by intervention participants. This information was, however, collected solely through self-report and we expect that some of the difference in the overall number of events reported between groups could be due to our more frequent contact with intervention participants via email and through the website.
In addition, despite the higher level of musculoskeletal events reported by intervention participants, we found no evidence that the intervention led to excessive harms. Thus, even though more work to understand the circumstances for those reporting musculoskeletal problems or worsening back pain may be required, these findings add to the evidence base to support walking as a generally safe and potentially effective intervention for some patients with chronic low back pain [ 49 - 52 ].
Other potential mechanisms of action are less clear. Despite a marginally greater decrease in pain levels among intervention participants at 6 months, this effect did not persist at 12 months. In addition, while there was a significant difference between groups in self-efficacy for exercise at 6 months, rather than the hypothesized improvement for those in the intervention, both groups reported lower levels of self-efficacy. However, the decline was smaller for those receiving the intervention. The reason for the decrease is not entirely clear but may be largely due to an unrealistic assessment of self-efficacy at baseline [ 53 ].
Among the strengths of our study are the high rate of participant follow-up and our collection of detailed adverse event information. This study also has several limitations. First, patients were recruited from only 1 medical center and the sample was predominantly male. However, based on trials of similar types of interventions, we expect this approach could be even more effective among women [ 54 ]. Second, we are not able to directly compare our results to other types of back pain interventions eg, yoga , although as previously noted the general trajectory of our primary outcome RDQ score appears consistent with recent trials in this area.
Third, although a consistent data collection format is generally recommended [ 55 ], we used both Internet-based and paper surveys. However, prior research has demonstrated similar psychometric properties between Internet and paper-and-pencil questionnaires [ 55 ] and specifically equivalence for our primary outcome [ 56 ]. We also believe that using both modes helped to ensure a high follow-up rate.
Finally, as a multifaceted intervention, we are not able to determine which elements were most effective and can only draw conclusions about the program as a whole. Nonetheless, our results highlight the importance of providing active support eg, goal setting and feedback to encourage walking as compared with simply giving someone a pedometer to track step counts. In sum, our findings indicate that a facilitated walking intervention that uses an uploading pedometer and the Internet may help to reduce back pain-related disability among patients with chronic back pain, at least in the short term.
Additional support, however, is likely needed to ensure continuing improvements long term. Nevertheless, this type of primarily automated intervention can be used to deliver care with broad reach and could be an efficient way of delivering or supplementing care provided through traditional facility-based programs. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the US government.
The study sponsors had no role in the design or conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Technical development of the Stepping Up to Health website could not have been accomplished without the expertise of our Web developers, Michael Hess, with assistance from Elizabeth Wilson and Adrienne Janney. Thanks also to Jill Bowdler for assistance with manuscript preparation.
Related Ann Arbor Review of Books 1.7 (30 May 2013)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved