![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
The idea of creating such an article is not a bad one, but "neighborhoods of the ring" sounds like something out of Startrek or Harry Potter. There must be a better translation than that. I would have a look at the English newspapers in Israel and see how they refer to them. -- Gilabrand ( talk) 07:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You should have noted that you removed the settlement bit, Gila, which I had as "aiming to surround it with sizable Jewish settlements," and at .He as: "ומטרתן הייתה להקיף את מרכז העיר בשכונות מגורים יהודיות גדולות." I'm disappointed you made no mention of it (" copyed" is misleading). El_C 09:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that you mistranslated that, probably the reason Gilabrand removed it. שכונות מגורים יהודיות גדולות is "large Jewish residential neighborhoods". The Israelis certainly didn't establish them as settlements. They expanded the borders of Jerusalem in 1967 and established the places within that city and subject to full Israeli civil law. I'll make note of the international positions even though I think it is overmentioned here. -- Robertert ( talk) 10:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and now I see you not only removed that in the "copyediting," you also removed "At the end of the war, the security doctrine held that the centre of the city needed to be surrounded by large residential neighborhoods, where thousands of Jews would live, taking advantage of undeveloped areas to build apartment buildings as quickly as possible. The building plan emphasized on satellite neighborhoods that would encompass Jerusalem [etc.]" which was at .He as "בתום המלחמה הייתה תפישה ביטחונית לפיה יש להקיף את מרכז העיר בשכונות מגורים גדולות, בהן יתגוררו אלפי יהודים תוך ניצול כל שטח פנוי לבניית דירות רבות בזריזות מרבית. מדיניות הבינוי שמה דגש על שכונות לווין [etc.]" How do you account for this? El_C 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that what El_C is saying is that you should have left a more substantial summary of the edit, i.e. make sure it was understood that you were changing a potentially controversial part. I personally agree with the edit for the reasons I said above, but it would help if you explained yourself at the time of the edit. -- Robertert ( talk) 11:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, if there is nothing different done (moderation perhaps) then we're going to end up in the same place. When Colour says that "neighborhood" is a disputed term and no one neutral can confirm or deny or whatever whether the sources support that, then what else will resolve that deadlock? -- Robertert ( talk) 12:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I've presented sources that support my case, which Colour says don't, and I've explained why I don't think the sources support his position. Unless a third-party like you or the "forced mediation" are going to verify what the sources say this will be a "he said/she said", albeit a ridiculous one. Are you able to look at the sources and offer an opinion? If not can you show us how to get to the mediators? -- Robertert ( talk) 20:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is an article that explains the anti-Zionist political POV that "editors" on Wikipedia are introducing all over the place, the more the merrier, and administrators, in the interests of "peacemaking" and "mediation," blithely allow: http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/reason.html-- Gilabrand ( talk) 09:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering why the initial information about them being established as settlements has been removed. Whether Israel intended for them to be neighborhoods of Jerusalem or not, it knew very well the international community would view them as settlements given that they were established on land East of the Armistice Line. This article seems to have been toned down, to such a point, that only people who are quite well acquainted with the situation would actually understand its full implications and intentions. Colourinthemeaning ( talk) 08:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The article contains many instances of passive voice. For example, it says that Jerusalem's area expanded 3-fold after the 1967 war but it doesn't say who decided that. If it were just one example I'd fix it myself, but the whole article contains several instances of weak passive voice. If anyone wants to work on it, I can help. Chutznik ( talk) 01:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Colourinthemeaning, I most definitely did make it neutral. The introduction states only clear facts. The introduction should be short. You are turning the introduction into a major part of the article, which is against the manual of style, as far as I know. The introduction now says:
The Ring neighborhoods of Jerusalem (Hebrew: שכונות הטבעת) are five suburban neighborhoods built by Israel on territory Israel captured in 1967 during the Six Day War.
Note that it says captured during the Six Day War. This is, for most people, enough to know that we are talking about a settlement. Anyone who comes to an article like this already knows that. For further details, they can read the section about the History and legal status - where the situation is full clarified according to both sides. Did you actually read that section? I completely rewrote it. Did you actually read this?
The city's territory was increased to 108km² when Israel unilaterally annexed areas north, east and south of the city to Israel, totaling an area three times the size of pre-war West Jerusalem. Internationally, due to their having been built beyond the Green Line, the neighborhoods Israel subsequently built on these annexed grounds are be considered to be Israeli settlements, leading them to be to considered illegal under international law.[1][2] Today, as many as 165,000 people reside in these communities. The United Nations rejected this change, making the expanded Jerusalem area unrecognised by the international community based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 476.
Why would you consider this to be "only the view of the Israeli government"? That is a plain lie. The introduction states plain facts, and the history/legal status section further clarifies and specifies the situation. I'm awaiting your reaction. And again, I emphasize, I am not a Zionist - I am merely an Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jew who lives close to these areas (but not in them; I live in proper West Jerusalem). -- Piz d'Es-Cha ( talk) 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Piz, I couldn't agree more that the lead needs to be short. It is imperative however, for reasons of NPOV that if the Israeli position is included in the lead, that the (majority) viewpoint, that of the international community must also be. Because I am more than willing to admit that both terms are disputed, albeit the Israeli one to a much higher degree, I think we should lead with more neutral terms such as 'residential development', 'contested' or 'disputed' as part of the Israel/Palestinian conflict, 'unrecognized internationally,' or perhaps even 'contested residential development'. What do you think of this? Also, you say that despite their place in international law, these places 'are neighborhoods of Jerusalem,' but I would like to know how their place in international law (and in national laws globally) is less important than their place in Israeli law? The only thing that could possibly make them 'neighborhoods of Jerusalem' is a law, which in this case happens to be disputed by almost every country in the world. This makes leading with such a term inherently biased. Colourinthemeaning ( talk) 06:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how me copying and pasting from the article to the talk page will help your reading comprehension of the material, but here you are:
"The confusion on the potentially explosive issue of Israeli settlements arose Sunday when Bernier was twice asked during a West Bank news conference whether Ottawa – which officially opposes new settlement activity by Israel – makes a distinction between housing construction in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem.
Both times, the Canadian minister pointedly ignored the question. The second time it was asked, he abruptly ended the news conference and left the room.
"Traditionally, there hasn't been any ambiguity in our policy," a Canadian expert on the Middle East told the Star yesterday. "There might be some ambiguity now."
He did not wish to be identified by name because some of his work is funded by Ottawa.
Neither Bernier nor Canadian officials travelling with him said anything publicly yesterday to clear up the confusion that now surrounds Ottawa's stance on new Israeli housing on land that once belonged to Palestinians."
Furthermore, I will request one final time that you stop removing other sourced and notable information from the article without any explanation or previous discussion on the talk page. You have reverted my edits about the fact that the United States did not support the UN resolution multiple times now. If you continue to edit in this manner, I am just letting you know that I will be forced to bring this to the attention of the admins. The removal of this information multiple times with no explanation or discussion is absolutely unacceptable and I'm starting to grow tired of fighting you for it. Breein1007 ( talk) 18:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The Jpost source link now redirects to the main page. Can anyone find another source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I recently made a change to the number of neighborhoods forming the ring. The original author did not provide any references supporting the number 5. I checked the Hebrew version of the page, 'שכונות הטבעת'. There were no reference dilineating the specific neighborhoods there either. If there are such references, I would welcome their inclusion in the article. In the meantime, I have found references which provide a partial picture:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-middle-east-12266847 Har Homa and even Ramat Eshkol are part of the ring
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=291825 Har Homa is part of the ring
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer203/editors Har Homa is part of the ring
http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/media%20brief/Jerusalem%20Media%20Brief%20May%202011.pdf Har Homa and even Atarot are part of the ring but, interestingly, no mention is made of East Talpiot
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_item.pl?data=/home/www/data/gmd/gmd7/g7504/g7504j/ct001915.jp2&style=gmd&itemLink=D?gmd:1:./temp/~ammem_hTxH::&title=Greater%20Jerusalem,%20May%202006. Map which depicts the neighborhoods surrounding Jerusalem including Har Homa, Ramat Shlomo, Atarot and even Ramat Eshkol, Givat HaMivtar and HaGiv'a HaTzarfatit. Givat HaMatos, an area recently approved for future residential development, also appears.
I could not find any official Israeli governmental references to 'ring neighborhoods'. I'm not even sure if the government would use such terminology in its official publications. This leaves us to rely on people's perceptions and mostly on Arab publications which undoubtedly would tend to maximize the number of ring neighborhoods.
I, for one would like to see the inclusion of Ramat Eshkol, Givat HaMivtar, HaGiv'a HaTzarfatit and Givat HaMatos. And let's not forget Nofei Zion, recently built and slated for expansion, located on land that was originally part of Jebel Mukaber? Never mind that Ramat Eshkol and HaGiv'a HaTzarfatit are the oldest and, according to most Jerusalemites, integral and inseparable neighborhoods of the city. I consider Neve Ya'akov to be just as integral and inseparable.
And Neve Ya'akov isn't even part of a 'ring' if you look at the subject purely from a geographical point of view. It is well beyond the so-called green line with Pisgat Ze'ev actually completing the ring in the northeast. But never mind, I don't wish to remove Neve Ya'kov from the list. I do wish to expand the list (based on geographical considerations). (Is that inconsistent? Oh well.)
Lacking any official Israeli governmental documents, I think the article needs to be based on a good look at a map. Neighborhoods built 'over and adjacent' to the so-called green line obviously qualify to be called ring neighborhoods. (And, OK, Neve Ya'akov, too)
By the way, there is even mention of a so-called "Inner Ring" surrounding the Old City and the Holy Basin such as the new neighborhoods being built in Silwan, Ras al Amoud, Mount of Olives, Issawiya and Sheikh Jarrah. See: http://www.fhfpal.org/mis/oldcity.htm and http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/media%20brief/Jerusalem%20Media%20Brief%20May%202011.pdf
Perhaps this information should be added as a new 'Inner Ring' section to the page. Atefrat ( talk) 09:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This article needs at least some mention of why these cities are built in the way they are; in the shape they're in. Because its a pretty specific way to build cities. 74.132.249.206 ( talk) 01:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! As I mentioned above, it is difficult to find "any official Israeli governmental references to 'ring neighborhoods'", probably because of political and/or PR considerations. On the other hand, Arab organizations regularly use the word "ring' when addressing the subject of Jewish neighborhoods encircling Jerusalem. Also, as to the number, it continues to rise. Not according to any official Israeli definition, but by Arab opposition to the phenomenon. atefrat ( talk) 19:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Should the title of this article be:
Huldra ( talk) 22:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Please vote:
For the international community, these are not "neighborhoods", they are settlements, no matter how many Israeli sources which call them that. Huldra ( talk) 22:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag, because
this is not an RfC matter. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
15:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
The idea of creating such an article is not a bad one, but "neighborhoods of the ring" sounds like something out of Startrek or Harry Potter. There must be a better translation than that. I would have a look at the English newspapers in Israel and see how they refer to them. -- Gilabrand ( talk) 07:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You should have noted that you removed the settlement bit, Gila, which I had as "aiming to surround it with sizable Jewish settlements," and at .He as: "ומטרתן הייתה להקיף את מרכז העיר בשכונות מגורים יהודיות גדולות." I'm disappointed you made no mention of it (" copyed" is misleading). El_C 09:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that you mistranslated that, probably the reason Gilabrand removed it. שכונות מגורים יהודיות גדולות is "large Jewish residential neighborhoods". The Israelis certainly didn't establish them as settlements. They expanded the borders of Jerusalem in 1967 and established the places within that city and subject to full Israeli civil law. I'll make note of the international positions even though I think it is overmentioned here. -- Robertert ( talk) 10:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and now I see you not only removed that in the "copyediting," you also removed "At the end of the war, the security doctrine held that the centre of the city needed to be surrounded by large residential neighborhoods, where thousands of Jews would live, taking advantage of undeveloped areas to build apartment buildings as quickly as possible. The building plan emphasized on satellite neighborhoods that would encompass Jerusalem [etc.]" which was at .He as "בתום המלחמה הייתה תפישה ביטחונית לפיה יש להקיף את מרכז העיר בשכונות מגורים גדולות, בהן יתגוררו אלפי יהודים תוך ניצול כל שטח פנוי לבניית דירות רבות בזריזות מרבית. מדיניות הבינוי שמה דגש על שכונות לווין [etc.]" How do you account for this? El_C 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that what El_C is saying is that you should have left a more substantial summary of the edit, i.e. make sure it was understood that you were changing a potentially controversial part. I personally agree with the edit for the reasons I said above, but it would help if you explained yourself at the time of the edit. -- Robertert ( talk) 11:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, if there is nothing different done (moderation perhaps) then we're going to end up in the same place. When Colour says that "neighborhood" is a disputed term and no one neutral can confirm or deny or whatever whether the sources support that, then what else will resolve that deadlock? -- Robertert ( talk) 12:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I've presented sources that support my case, which Colour says don't, and I've explained why I don't think the sources support his position. Unless a third-party like you or the "forced mediation" are going to verify what the sources say this will be a "he said/she said", albeit a ridiculous one. Are you able to look at the sources and offer an opinion? If not can you show us how to get to the mediators? -- Robertert ( talk) 20:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is an article that explains the anti-Zionist political POV that "editors" on Wikipedia are introducing all over the place, the more the merrier, and administrators, in the interests of "peacemaking" and "mediation," blithely allow: http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/reason.html-- Gilabrand ( talk) 09:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering why the initial information about them being established as settlements has been removed. Whether Israel intended for them to be neighborhoods of Jerusalem or not, it knew very well the international community would view them as settlements given that they were established on land East of the Armistice Line. This article seems to have been toned down, to such a point, that only people who are quite well acquainted with the situation would actually understand its full implications and intentions. Colourinthemeaning ( talk) 08:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The article contains many instances of passive voice. For example, it says that Jerusalem's area expanded 3-fold after the 1967 war but it doesn't say who decided that. If it were just one example I'd fix it myself, but the whole article contains several instances of weak passive voice. If anyone wants to work on it, I can help. Chutznik ( talk) 01:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Colourinthemeaning, I most definitely did make it neutral. The introduction states only clear facts. The introduction should be short. You are turning the introduction into a major part of the article, which is against the manual of style, as far as I know. The introduction now says:
The Ring neighborhoods of Jerusalem (Hebrew: שכונות הטבעת) are five suburban neighborhoods built by Israel on territory Israel captured in 1967 during the Six Day War.
Note that it says captured during the Six Day War. This is, for most people, enough to know that we are talking about a settlement. Anyone who comes to an article like this already knows that. For further details, they can read the section about the History and legal status - where the situation is full clarified according to both sides. Did you actually read that section? I completely rewrote it. Did you actually read this?
The city's territory was increased to 108km² when Israel unilaterally annexed areas north, east and south of the city to Israel, totaling an area three times the size of pre-war West Jerusalem. Internationally, due to their having been built beyond the Green Line, the neighborhoods Israel subsequently built on these annexed grounds are be considered to be Israeli settlements, leading them to be to considered illegal under international law.[1][2] Today, as many as 165,000 people reside in these communities. The United Nations rejected this change, making the expanded Jerusalem area unrecognised by the international community based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 476.
Why would you consider this to be "only the view of the Israeli government"? That is a plain lie. The introduction states plain facts, and the history/legal status section further clarifies and specifies the situation. I'm awaiting your reaction. And again, I emphasize, I am not a Zionist - I am merely an Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jew who lives close to these areas (but not in them; I live in proper West Jerusalem). -- Piz d'Es-Cha ( talk) 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Piz, I couldn't agree more that the lead needs to be short. It is imperative however, for reasons of NPOV that if the Israeli position is included in the lead, that the (majority) viewpoint, that of the international community must also be. Because I am more than willing to admit that both terms are disputed, albeit the Israeli one to a much higher degree, I think we should lead with more neutral terms such as 'residential development', 'contested' or 'disputed' as part of the Israel/Palestinian conflict, 'unrecognized internationally,' or perhaps even 'contested residential development'. What do you think of this? Also, you say that despite their place in international law, these places 'are neighborhoods of Jerusalem,' but I would like to know how their place in international law (and in national laws globally) is less important than their place in Israeli law? The only thing that could possibly make them 'neighborhoods of Jerusalem' is a law, which in this case happens to be disputed by almost every country in the world. This makes leading with such a term inherently biased. Colourinthemeaning ( talk) 06:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how me copying and pasting from the article to the talk page will help your reading comprehension of the material, but here you are:
"The confusion on the potentially explosive issue of Israeli settlements arose Sunday when Bernier was twice asked during a West Bank news conference whether Ottawa – which officially opposes new settlement activity by Israel – makes a distinction between housing construction in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem.
Both times, the Canadian minister pointedly ignored the question. The second time it was asked, he abruptly ended the news conference and left the room.
"Traditionally, there hasn't been any ambiguity in our policy," a Canadian expert on the Middle East told the Star yesterday. "There might be some ambiguity now."
He did not wish to be identified by name because some of his work is funded by Ottawa.
Neither Bernier nor Canadian officials travelling with him said anything publicly yesterday to clear up the confusion that now surrounds Ottawa's stance on new Israeli housing on land that once belonged to Palestinians."
Furthermore, I will request one final time that you stop removing other sourced and notable information from the article without any explanation or previous discussion on the talk page. You have reverted my edits about the fact that the United States did not support the UN resolution multiple times now. If you continue to edit in this manner, I am just letting you know that I will be forced to bring this to the attention of the admins. The removal of this information multiple times with no explanation or discussion is absolutely unacceptable and I'm starting to grow tired of fighting you for it. Breein1007 ( talk) 18:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The Jpost source link now redirects to the main page. Can anyone find another source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I recently made a change to the number of neighborhoods forming the ring. The original author did not provide any references supporting the number 5. I checked the Hebrew version of the page, 'שכונות הטבעת'. There were no reference dilineating the specific neighborhoods there either. If there are such references, I would welcome their inclusion in the article. In the meantime, I have found references which provide a partial picture:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-middle-east-12266847 Har Homa and even Ramat Eshkol are part of the ring
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=291825 Har Homa is part of the ring
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer203/editors Har Homa is part of the ring
http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/media%20brief/Jerusalem%20Media%20Brief%20May%202011.pdf Har Homa and even Atarot are part of the ring but, interestingly, no mention is made of East Talpiot
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_item.pl?data=/home/www/data/gmd/gmd7/g7504/g7504j/ct001915.jp2&style=gmd&itemLink=D?gmd:1:./temp/~ammem_hTxH::&title=Greater%20Jerusalem,%20May%202006. Map which depicts the neighborhoods surrounding Jerusalem including Har Homa, Ramat Shlomo, Atarot and even Ramat Eshkol, Givat HaMivtar and HaGiv'a HaTzarfatit. Givat HaMatos, an area recently approved for future residential development, also appears.
I could not find any official Israeli governmental references to 'ring neighborhoods'. I'm not even sure if the government would use such terminology in its official publications. This leaves us to rely on people's perceptions and mostly on Arab publications which undoubtedly would tend to maximize the number of ring neighborhoods.
I, for one would like to see the inclusion of Ramat Eshkol, Givat HaMivtar, HaGiv'a HaTzarfatit and Givat HaMatos. And let's not forget Nofei Zion, recently built and slated for expansion, located on land that was originally part of Jebel Mukaber? Never mind that Ramat Eshkol and HaGiv'a HaTzarfatit are the oldest and, according to most Jerusalemites, integral and inseparable neighborhoods of the city. I consider Neve Ya'akov to be just as integral and inseparable.
And Neve Ya'akov isn't even part of a 'ring' if you look at the subject purely from a geographical point of view. It is well beyond the so-called green line with Pisgat Ze'ev actually completing the ring in the northeast. But never mind, I don't wish to remove Neve Ya'kov from the list. I do wish to expand the list (based on geographical considerations). (Is that inconsistent? Oh well.)
Lacking any official Israeli governmental documents, I think the article needs to be based on a good look at a map. Neighborhoods built 'over and adjacent' to the so-called green line obviously qualify to be called ring neighborhoods. (And, OK, Neve Ya'akov, too)
By the way, there is even mention of a so-called "Inner Ring" surrounding the Old City and the Holy Basin such as the new neighborhoods being built in Silwan, Ras al Amoud, Mount of Olives, Issawiya and Sheikh Jarrah. See: http://www.fhfpal.org/mis/oldcity.htm and http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/media%20brief/Jerusalem%20Media%20Brief%20May%202011.pdf
Perhaps this information should be added as a new 'Inner Ring' section to the page. Atefrat ( talk) 09:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This article needs at least some mention of why these cities are built in the way they are; in the shape they're in. Because its a pretty specific way to build cities. 74.132.249.206 ( talk) 01:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! As I mentioned above, it is difficult to find "any official Israeli governmental references to 'ring neighborhoods'", probably because of political and/or PR considerations. On the other hand, Arab organizations regularly use the word "ring' when addressing the subject of Jewish neighborhoods encircling Jerusalem. Also, as to the number, it continues to rise. Not according to any official Israeli definition, but by Arab opposition to the phenomenon. atefrat ( talk) 19:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Should the title of this article be:
Huldra ( talk) 22:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Please vote:
For the international community, these are not "neighborhoods", they are settlements, no matter how many Israeli sources which call them that. Huldra ( talk) 22:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag, because
this is not an RfC matter. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
15:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)