This is not an encyclopedia article, or even the talk page for an encyclopedia article. It is a miserable little pile of secrets. Do not consult it for term papers, doctoral dissertations, Congressional committee reports, ecumenical statements, et cetera.
If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror, or one of those ersatz knockoff sites that make fake profiles of Wikipedia editors and claim them as users. Be aware that the page may be outdated, or stupid, and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JPxG.
This user talk page might be
watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Oh, God damn it. I had a feeling there was going to be some additional hidden layer to this. Well, at any rate, I undeleted it so a Signpost writer could look through the revision history to write an article about how the AfD and the article development process worked -- so I think that if this can veg for a few days it will be fine. Yeah? jp×
g🗯️02:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My post is informational only. I didn't really have a dog in the fight, was just trying to tidy up around the edges, and still don't have a strong opinion. I do know that the objection was to the tabloidish nature of the content, but that the content itself was all RS'ed, just perceived as tacky and in poor taste, especially once the cancer diagnosis was revealed. I'm not a subject of the crown, and have less personal emotional investment in Catherine Middleton than in school acquaintances I haven't seen in decades.
Jclemens (
talk)
02:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JPxG, I think you should take the article down for the time being, as I feel you may have overridden the deletion consensus of it being a BLP violation, tabloidish, and everything
Jclemens said above. I'm still writing up the Trump photo one for the upcoming issue, so perhaps we can set a date when you restore the Kate article, Saturday or Sunday?
Svampesky (
talk)
11:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What a mess. I wish people would put more detailed notes/references to the actual discussions that originated consensus in the deletion log instead of just leaving it up to guesswork - but I guess it can't be helped. At any rate, sure, I can re-delete it until you are actually ready to write. I can also restore the revisions to page in your userspace somewhere (if you are fine with having the page's deletion/move log have the link to
User:Svampesky/resource or whatever) -- everyone I asked prior to doing this mostly seemed to agree that would be acceptable for a few days, I just didn't do it because of the additional PITA etc. jp×
g🗯️11:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, cool. Delete for now and I'll ping you when I need access to it for the signpost. Alternatively, is there any way of you hatting my account and admins give me access to pages ad hoc, in line with writing reports? I think it would've helped if I had access to Kalloor (and I don't think I even knew admins had access?)
Svampesky (
talk)
12:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's no rule about sending deleted pages to non-admins but I think there is some kind of actual legal issue with letting non-admins see pages. At least this was my recollection the last time people were talking about this -- the WMF had some kind of legal thing going on where people could strictly never be allowed access to the full sum of all deleted content without going through some kind of community selection process (e.g. why all the rfa sortition stuff didn't end up going through). @
Barkeep49: Now that you've got free time I can ping you for piddling shit like this right? jp×
g🗯️16:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Why me? But yes access to deleted material is considered by the WMF to be something that needs community consensus and could not be unbundled from RfA (or an RfA-like process). Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
16:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's no rule about sending deleted pages to non-admins but I think there is some kind of actual legal issue with letting non-admins see pages. The first part of this sentence contradicts the last. You're allowed to send pages, but the recipient is not allowed to see it? I'll just work with the resources I have available. Given that the deletion report primarily pertains to the discussion itself and the policy under consideration during said discussion, the article is not really needed. The article may enhance the report. My suggestion is: initiate a Restore for Signpost (RfSP; as RfS was already in use) and post it on the newsroom page. Additionally, notify the admin noticeboard so the community can assess its suitability. The report will proceed as planned, but the community can decide whether the article/selection revisions of it can be linked.
Svampesky (
talk)
16:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have mixed feeling about the restoration of the Kate article. I would've opposed the restoration and linking of the Kalloor article, as it effectively disregarded the community's consensus for deleting it. The Signpost probably shouldn't restore articles without prior consultation with the community.
Svampesky (
talk)
16:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I undelete pages pretty often, e.g. stuff like
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam woeger or
Slashdot subculture that got deleted for some bizarre reason like "the article was deleted so we don't need to keep the deletion nomination page" or "if we have a redirect people will inexorably expand it into an article" -- well, maybe in 2007 but certainly not now. The Kalloor AfD closed with nothing against a redirect, so I figured it would be fine inasmuch as there was no likelihood of someone reverting to the old version. With the Kate one, well, I thought I had read all of the discussion around it beforehand but I guess there was a separate thing which I missed -- am glad to re-delete if you are done with the thing. jp×
g🗯️11:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sup. Kindly redelete. This was not a bizarre reason. Discussion is clear. Judged by the community as non-compliant material under the BLP policy. It's a discrete, codified, DELREASON. History deleted per consensus around a BLP concern -- administrators are obligated to treat it as bad material, not for public access. That's the consensus: material is inappropriate for public viewing on this website. It's available for public viewing with two additional clicks now. It's not like it was deleted for lack of notability; it was wholly redacted out of the encyclopedia, ejected from the entire site as actively bad. There's a hierarchy of values, and respecting such a consensus in particular takes precedences over making it easier to write Signpost article. No biggie so far but this can't hinge on someone telling you they're done with their thing. I'm emotionally detached from this topic, but had to tell you this, however, as these principles are good. Respectfully —
Alalch E.00:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support/Delete per above and the overwhelming community consensus that the article should be deleted. The article is not necessary for me to write the report, as it will focus on the discussions and the policy concerns that were raised. Discussing the content of the article, if it was not addressed in the various discussions, would also seem like exploiting a loophole against the community.
Svampesky (
talk)
01:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Additionally, I may have bitten off more than I can chew with this one. When I was reading the article at the time, I was only aware of the AfD and RM. I didn't know about the additional complexities and layers involved with the other discussions. Therefore, I believe it is best for me to slowly work on this one, as I need to acquire more policy knowledge to write it effectively. I'm not too invested in getting this particular deletion report published as soon as possible, so gradually writing it is probably best.
Svampesky (
talk)
02:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, I said if anyone gave enough of a damn to ask, I'd be happy to re-delete it, so there is no need to convince me; back down the toilet it goes. jp×
g🗯️03:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, the stupid thing is buried again, this time with some actual indication that consensus exists and a link to where it can be found. If something is really that toxic, I think it really ought to be marked in some way, not just left for people to stumble across. Exemplis grata: jp×
g🗯️03:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I missed this, sorry. What I mean is that individual admins are allowed to send the contents of deleted pages to whoever at their discretion (ofc unless it is some kind of snuff-film thing or whatever) -- the thing Legal dislikes is the idea of people who haven't passed a community confirmation process being given the idea to themselves go willy-nilly through deleted page histories unattended. jp×
g🗯️03:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, your redrawing of the image wouldn't be a speedy if uploaded here instead of Commons, though it probably wouldn't get kept at FFD. It is unquestionably fair-use (in the sense of being allowable under US law, not in the sense of it not being allowable on WMF sites) and has a stronger case for that if hosted here instead of at Commons. —
Cryptic13:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
For me it is just an issue of exhaustion more than anything else: there are hundreds of Signpost articles with illustrations on Commons, and there are so many arbitrary differences (either in the actual policy or in house interpretations of what are nominally supposed to be identical policies) that it's basically worthless to try to beat back the tide. Sometimes it is a license being on the image description page but not in the right template field, sometimes it is a person batch-nominating 100 images for no apparent reason, sometimes it is a vandal smashing their keyboard: the only constant is that it consumes a gigantic amount of time because I have to go personally respond to it every time. Presumably you are enforcing the Commons policies evenly and in line with consensus there -- I just find said policy/consensus to be unreasonably difficult and inconsistent. jp×
g🗯️13:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.
Translations are available.
Feature News
Stewards can now
globally block accounts. Before
the change only IP addresses and IP ranges could be blocked globally. Global account blocks are useful when the blocked user should not be logged out.
Global locks (a similar tool logging the user out of their account) are unaffected by this change. The new global account block feature is related to the
Temporary Accounts project, which is a new type of user account that replaces IP addresses of unregistered editors that are no longer made public.
Later this week, Wikimedia site users will notice that the Interface of
FlaggedRevs (also known as "Pending Changes") is improved and consistent with the rest of the MediaWiki interface and
Wikimedia's design system. The FlaggedRevs interface experience on mobile and
Minerva skin was inconsistent before it was fixed and ported to
Codex by the WMF Growth team and some volunteers.
[3]
Wikimedia site users can now submit account vanishing requests via
GlobalVanishRequest. This feature is used when a contributor wishes to stop editing forever. It helps you hide your past association and edit to protect your privacy. Once processed, the account will be locked and renamed.
[4]
Have you tried monitoring and addressing vandalism in Wikipedia using your phone?
A Diff blog post on Patrolling features in the Mobile App highlights some of the new capabilities of the feature, including swiping through a feed of recent changes and a personal library of user talk messages for use when patrolling from your phone.
Wikimedia contributors and GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums) organisations can now learn and measure the impact Wikimedia Commons is having towards creating quality encyclopedic content using the
Commons Impact Metrics analytics dashboard. The dashboard offers organizations analytics on things like monthly edits in a category, the most viewed files, and which Wikimedia articles are using Commons images. As a result of these new data dumps, GLAM organisation can more reliably measure their return on investment for programs bringing content into the digital Commons.
[5]
Project Updates
Come share your ideas for improving the wikis on the newly reopened
Community Wishlist. The Community Wishlist is Wikimedia’s forum for volunteers to share ideas (called wishes) to improve how the wikis work. The new version of the wishlist is always open, works with both wikitext and Visual Editor, and allows wishes in any language.
Learn more
Have you ever wondered how Wikimedia software works across over 300 languages? This is 253 languages more than the Google Chrome interface, and it's no accident. The Language and Product Localization Team at the Wikimedia Foundation supports your work by adapting all the tools and interfaces in the MediaWiki software so that contributors in our movement who translate pages and strings can translate them and have the sites in all languages. Read more about the team and their upcoming work on
Diff.
How can Wikimedia build innovative and experimental products while maintaining such heavily used websites? A recent
blog post by WMF staff Johan Jönsson highlights the work of the
WMF Future Audience initiative, where the goal is not to build polished products but test out new ideas, such as a
ChatGPT plugin and
Add a Fact, to help take Wikimedia into the future.
Hello! I was wondering if I could become a copy editor for the Signpost, as I want to contribute in some way, but I’m not very skilled at writing. Thanks! Shadestar474(talk)03:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
[10] was a very kind comment of you to leave. The project as a whole can benefit if we all show mutual understanding and compassion towards one another. I'm also learning of
WP:BITE - so, in general, thank you for setting a great example for how we all should act in our regular interactions on here (and in real life too).
— ThatCopticGuyping me! (
talk) (
contribs)
15:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
won't work on wikis with localized "Special:Contributions". For example:
de:Spezial:Beiträge and
ru:Служебная:Вклад. An equivalent check without locale dependency is:
I saw this
Help:Drawing attention to new pages. I propose featuring newly published essays in the essay column to draw attention to them. These essays can vary in tone, including serious and humorous ones. The column will be a good place for readers to check on if there's any new essays, discuss and improve them.
Svampesky (
talk)
14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is not an encyclopedia article, or even the talk page for an encyclopedia article. It is a miserable little pile of secrets. Do not consult it for term papers, doctoral dissertations, Congressional committee reports, ecumenical statements, et cetera.
If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror, or one of those ersatz knockoff sites that make fake profiles of Wikipedia editors and claim them as users. Be aware that the page may be outdated, or stupid, and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JPxG.
This user talk page might be
watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Oh, God damn it. I had a feeling there was going to be some additional hidden layer to this. Well, at any rate, I undeleted it so a Signpost writer could look through the revision history to write an article about how the AfD and the article development process worked -- so I think that if this can veg for a few days it will be fine. Yeah? jp×
g🗯️02:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My post is informational only. I didn't really have a dog in the fight, was just trying to tidy up around the edges, and still don't have a strong opinion. I do know that the objection was to the tabloidish nature of the content, but that the content itself was all RS'ed, just perceived as tacky and in poor taste, especially once the cancer diagnosis was revealed. I'm not a subject of the crown, and have less personal emotional investment in Catherine Middleton than in school acquaintances I haven't seen in decades.
Jclemens (
talk)
02:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JPxG, I think you should take the article down for the time being, as I feel you may have overridden the deletion consensus of it being a BLP violation, tabloidish, and everything
Jclemens said above. I'm still writing up the Trump photo one for the upcoming issue, so perhaps we can set a date when you restore the Kate article, Saturday or Sunday?
Svampesky (
talk)
11:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What a mess. I wish people would put more detailed notes/references to the actual discussions that originated consensus in the deletion log instead of just leaving it up to guesswork - but I guess it can't be helped. At any rate, sure, I can re-delete it until you are actually ready to write. I can also restore the revisions to page in your userspace somewhere (if you are fine with having the page's deletion/move log have the link to
User:Svampesky/resource or whatever) -- everyone I asked prior to doing this mostly seemed to agree that would be acceptable for a few days, I just didn't do it because of the additional PITA etc. jp×
g🗯️11:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, cool. Delete for now and I'll ping you when I need access to it for the signpost. Alternatively, is there any way of you hatting my account and admins give me access to pages ad hoc, in line with writing reports? I think it would've helped if I had access to Kalloor (and I don't think I even knew admins had access?)
Svampesky (
talk)
12:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's no rule about sending deleted pages to non-admins but I think there is some kind of actual legal issue with letting non-admins see pages. At least this was my recollection the last time people were talking about this -- the WMF had some kind of legal thing going on where people could strictly never be allowed access to the full sum of all deleted content without going through some kind of community selection process (e.g. why all the rfa sortition stuff didn't end up going through). @
Barkeep49: Now that you've got free time I can ping you for piddling shit like this right? jp×
g🗯️16:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Why me? But yes access to deleted material is considered by the WMF to be something that needs community consensus and could not be unbundled from RfA (or an RfA-like process). Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
16:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's no rule about sending deleted pages to non-admins but I think there is some kind of actual legal issue with letting non-admins see pages. The first part of this sentence contradicts the last. You're allowed to send pages, but the recipient is not allowed to see it? I'll just work with the resources I have available. Given that the deletion report primarily pertains to the discussion itself and the policy under consideration during said discussion, the article is not really needed. The article may enhance the report. My suggestion is: initiate a Restore for Signpost (RfSP; as RfS was already in use) and post it on the newsroom page. Additionally, notify the admin noticeboard so the community can assess its suitability. The report will proceed as planned, but the community can decide whether the article/selection revisions of it can be linked.
Svampesky (
talk)
16:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have mixed feeling about the restoration of the Kate article. I would've opposed the restoration and linking of the Kalloor article, as it effectively disregarded the community's consensus for deleting it. The Signpost probably shouldn't restore articles without prior consultation with the community.
Svampesky (
talk)
16:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I undelete pages pretty often, e.g. stuff like
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam woeger or
Slashdot subculture that got deleted for some bizarre reason like "the article was deleted so we don't need to keep the deletion nomination page" or "if we have a redirect people will inexorably expand it into an article" -- well, maybe in 2007 but certainly not now. The Kalloor AfD closed with nothing against a redirect, so I figured it would be fine inasmuch as there was no likelihood of someone reverting to the old version. With the Kate one, well, I thought I had read all of the discussion around it beforehand but I guess there was a separate thing which I missed -- am glad to re-delete if you are done with the thing. jp×
g🗯️11:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sup. Kindly redelete. This was not a bizarre reason. Discussion is clear. Judged by the community as non-compliant material under the BLP policy. It's a discrete, codified, DELREASON. History deleted per consensus around a BLP concern -- administrators are obligated to treat it as bad material, not for public access. That's the consensus: material is inappropriate for public viewing on this website. It's available for public viewing with two additional clicks now. It's not like it was deleted for lack of notability; it was wholly redacted out of the encyclopedia, ejected from the entire site as actively bad. There's a hierarchy of values, and respecting such a consensus in particular takes precedences over making it easier to write Signpost article. No biggie so far but this can't hinge on someone telling you they're done with their thing. I'm emotionally detached from this topic, but had to tell you this, however, as these principles are good. Respectfully —
Alalch E.00:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support/Delete per above and the overwhelming community consensus that the article should be deleted. The article is not necessary for me to write the report, as it will focus on the discussions and the policy concerns that were raised. Discussing the content of the article, if it was not addressed in the various discussions, would also seem like exploiting a loophole against the community.
Svampesky (
talk)
01:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Additionally, I may have bitten off more than I can chew with this one. When I was reading the article at the time, I was only aware of the AfD and RM. I didn't know about the additional complexities and layers involved with the other discussions. Therefore, I believe it is best for me to slowly work on this one, as I need to acquire more policy knowledge to write it effectively. I'm not too invested in getting this particular deletion report published as soon as possible, so gradually writing it is probably best.
Svampesky (
talk)
02:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, I said if anyone gave enough of a damn to ask, I'd be happy to re-delete it, so there is no need to convince me; back down the toilet it goes. jp×
g🗯️03:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, the stupid thing is buried again, this time with some actual indication that consensus exists and a link to where it can be found. If something is really that toxic, I think it really ought to be marked in some way, not just left for people to stumble across. Exemplis grata: jp×
g🗯️03:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I missed this, sorry. What I mean is that individual admins are allowed to send the contents of deleted pages to whoever at their discretion (ofc unless it is some kind of snuff-film thing or whatever) -- the thing Legal dislikes is the idea of people who haven't passed a community confirmation process being given the idea to themselves go willy-nilly through deleted page histories unattended. jp×
g🗯️03:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, your redrawing of the image wouldn't be a speedy if uploaded here instead of Commons, though it probably wouldn't get kept at FFD. It is unquestionably fair-use (in the sense of being allowable under US law, not in the sense of it not being allowable on WMF sites) and has a stronger case for that if hosted here instead of at Commons. —
Cryptic13:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
For me it is just an issue of exhaustion more than anything else: there are hundreds of Signpost articles with illustrations on Commons, and there are so many arbitrary differences (either in the actual policy or in house interpretations of what are nominally supposed to be identical policies) that it's basically worthless to try to beat back the tide. Sometimes it is a license being on the image description page but not in the right template field, sometimes it is a person batch-nominating 100 images for no apparent reason, sometimes it is a vandal smashing their keyboard: the only constant is that it consumes a gigantic amount of time because I have to go personally respond to it every time. Presumably you are enforcing the Commons policies evenly and in line with consensus there -- I just find said policy/consensus to be unreasonably difficult and inconsistent. jp×
g🗯️13:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.
Translations are available.
Feature News
Stewards can now
globally block accounts. Before
the change only IP addresses and IP ranges could be blocked globally. Global account blocks are useful when the blocked user should not be logged out.
Global locks (a similar tool logging the user out of their account) are unaffected by this change. The new global account block feature is related to the
Temporary Accounts project, which is a new type of user account that replaces IP addresses of unregistered editors that are no longer made public.
Later this week, Wikimedia site users will notice that the Interface of
FlaggedRevs (also known as "Pending Changes") is improved and consistent with the rest of the MediaWiki interface and
Wikimedia's design system. The FlaggedRevs interface experience on mobile and
Minerva skin was inconsistent before it was fixed and ported to
Codex by the WMF Growth team and some volunteers.
[3]
Wikimedia site users can now submit account vanishing requests via
GlobalVanishRequest. This feature is used when a contributor wishes to stop editing forever. It helps you hide your past association and edit to protect your privacy. Once processed, the account will be locked and renamed.
[4]
Have you tried monitoring and addressing vandalism in Wikipedia using your phone?
A Diff blog post on Patrolling features in the Mobile App highlights some of the new capabilities of the feature, including swiping through a feed of recent changes and a personal library of user talk messages for use when patrolling from your phone.
Wikimedia contributors and GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums) organisations can now learn and measure the impact Wikimedia Commons is having towards creating quality encyclopedic content using the
Commons Impact Metrics analytics dashboard. The dashboard offers organizations analytics on things like monthly edits in a category, the most viewed files, and which Wikimedia articles are using Commons images. As a result of these new data dumps, GLAM organisation can more reliably measure their return on investment for programs bringing content into the digital Commons.
[5]
Project Updates
Come share your ideas for improving the wikis on the newly reopened
Community Wishlist. The Community Wishlist is Wikimedia’s forum for volunteers to share ideas (called wishes) to improve how the wikis work. The new version of the wishlist is always open, works with both wikitext and Visual Editor, and allows wishes in any language.
Learn more
Have you ever wondered how Wikimedia software works across over 300 languages? This is 253 languages more than the Google Chrome interface, and it's no accident. The Language and Product Localization Team at the Wikimedia Foundation supports your work by adapting all the tools and interfaces in the MediaWiki software so that contributors in our movement who translate pages and strings can translate them and have the sites in all languages. Read more about the team and their upcoming work on
Diff.
How can Wikimedia build innovative and experimental products while maintaining such heavily used websites? A recent
blog post by WMF staff Johan Jönsson highlights the work of the
WMF Future Audience initiative, where the goal is not to build polished products but test out new ideas, such as a
ChatGPT plugin and
Add a Fact, to help take Wikimedia into the future.
Hello! I was wondering if I could become a copy editor for the Signpost, as I want to contribute in some way, but I’m not very skilled at writing. Thanks! Shadestar474(talk)03:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
[10] was a very kind comment of you to leave. The project as a whole can benefit if we all show mutual understanding and compassion towards one another. I'm also learning of
WP:BITE - so, in general, thank you for setting a great example for how we all should act in our regular interactions on here (and in real life too).
— ThatCopticGuyping me! (
talk) (
contribs)
15:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
won't work on wikis with localized "Special:Contributions". For example:
de:Spezial:Beiträge and
ru:Служебная:Вклад. An equivalent check without locale dependency is:
I saw this
Help:Drawing attention to new pages. I propose featuring newly published essays in the essay column to draw attention to them. These essays can vary in tone, including serious and humorous ones. The column will be a good place for readers to check on if there's any new essays, discuss and improve them.
Svampesky (
talk)
14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
_(clown_town_edition).png)
Template:10x has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Gonnym (
talk)
08:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
