User talk:Arianewiki1

Plasma cosmology revert

Hi! I reverted your revert of my edit on plasma cosmology: [1] but just wanted to confirm with you what you may have found problematic about the edit. The wording previously implied something a bit more "opinion-y" about a fact associated with astrophysical plasmas. I know controversial articles like this can be confusing, so just wanted to start-up the conversation here in case there was a mistake or something.

jps (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

3o Dispute Request

Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors. When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors during the discussion in order to be successful.

The less formal nature of the third opinion process is a major advantage over other methods of resolving disputes. For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment.

How to list a dispute

Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment. 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation. Further guidance is available in Third Opinion frequently asked questions.

It is recommended that the filing editor notify the second editor about the post here. If the second editor disagrees with this process, the first editor still has the right to receive a third opinion; however, since this is non-binding, the second editor is free to ignore the third opinion if they wish to.

In cases involving long discussions or topics requiring prior technical knowledge, editors are requested to present a short summary of the dispute, in plain English and preferably in a new subsection below the main discussion, so that 3O volunteers may find it easier to respond to.

Some disputes may involve editor conduct issues as well as issues regarding article content. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue. For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the administrators noticeboard. If in doubt, post your request here at third opinion and a neutral editor will help out.

Instructions

No discussion of the issue should take place here—this page is only for listing the dispute. Please confine discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.

Follow these instructions to make your post:

• Edit the following "Active disagreements" section on this page to begin a new entry in the section. Your entry should be at the end of the list if there are other entries, and the first character should be a # symbol to create a numbered list. This preserves the numbering and chronological order of the list.
• Your entry should contain the following:
  • a section link to a section on the article's talk page dedicated to the 3O discussion.
  • a brief neutral description of the dispute—no more than a line or two—without trying to argue for or against either side. Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants.
  • a date, but no signature. You can add the date without your name by using five tildes (~~~~~). (Note: your name will still be shown in your contributions and the page edit history.)
• Be sure to provide a notification of your request on the page where the dispute is occurring.

Requests are subject to being removed from the list if no volunteer chooses to provide an opinion within six days after they are listed below. If your dispute is removed for that reason (check the history to see the reason), please feel free to re-list your dispute if you still would like to obtain an opinion—indicate that it's been re-listed in your entry. If removed a second time due to no volunteer giving an opinion, please do not relist again.

If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a Third Opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer.

Active disagreements

<onlyinclude>

1. Talk:International Committee of the Red Cross#Removal of 'Criticism' section Dispute regarding whether or not to remove a criticism section. 18:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Talk:BiglyBT#Tags Dispute over whether a notability and primary-sourcing tag should remain on the article. 13:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia talk:A picture of you#"Welcome_to_Wikipedia!" Should this essay begin with the phrase "welcome to Wikipedia"? 16:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback

Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. We want to know whether the outcome was positive or not, helping us to maintain and improve the standards of our work. If a respondent's third opinion was especially helpful or wise, you might want to consider awarding {{subst:The Third Opinion Award|your message}} on their user talk page. It can also be given once for diligent service to this project which is generally any volunteer who has more than 50 edits to this page. For more information see its documentation and Wikipedia:Third opinion/Service award log.

Providing third opinions

When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page before you provide your third opinion. Doing so prevents other volunteers from duplicating your effort. Please mention in the edit summary how many disputes remain. Example of summary message: 5 items remain on the list

• Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
• Read the arguments of the disputants.
• Do not provide opinions recklessly. Remember that Wikipedia works by consensus, not a vote. In some cases both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both. Provide the reasoning behind your argument.
• Provide third opinions in the relevant section of the disputed article talk pages following the discussion of the dispute. Sign your comments with four tildes, like so: ~~~~.
• Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
• Unless there's a clearly urgent problem, don't make immediate article-content changes of your own which affect the ongoing discussion.
• Consider keeping pages on which you have given a third opinion on your watchlist for a few days. Often, articles listed here are watched by very few people.
• If it's not clear what the dispute is, put {{subst:third opinion|your_username}} on the talk page of the article. This template will post sections for the disputing editors to summarize their opinions.
• For third opinion requests that do not follow the instructions above, it is possible to alert the requesting party to that fact by employing {{uw-3o}}.

Use template

• The {{3OR}} template is handy for providing a third opinion on the talk page. For a shorter alternative, {{3ORshort}} can also be used. Usage (either):

{{subst:3OR|<your response>}}
{{subst:3ORshort|<your response>}}

Declining requests

If you remove a dispute from the list for any reason, it is good practice to also leave a message on the dispute talk page explaining what you have done. The message should have the following characteristics:

• It should be civil and assume the request was made in good faith.
• It should explain why the request was declined (e.g. "There are too many people involved already.")
• It should suggest alternatives (e.g. "Perhaps you should try WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options.")

Volunteers

Active contributors who watchlist the page, review disputes, and update the list of active disagreements with informative edit summaries, are welcome to add themselves to the Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions. If you support this project you may wish to add the {{User Third opinion}} userbox to your user page, which automatically adds you to this category.

Adding {{Third opinion}} to your dashboard or userpage will produce or transclude only the active disagreements for viewing. Sample code with additional links:

Third opinion disputes {{Wikipedia:Third Opinion}}<small>[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Third opinion|action=edit&section=3}} update], {{purge}}</small>

sv:Wikipedia:Konflikthantering#Skaffa åsikter från flera

ignore the automatic undo notice

Sorry. A slow screen refresh resulted in me accidentally undoing you here Meters (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Easily done. Thanks for the heads up. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed editing restriction: Article edit summaries mandatory for Arianewiki1. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Crux and the Coalsack Nebula

Hello, Arianewiki1,
I just added a new section to the talk page for the article Crux, which you worked on just yesterday (as I write this). After I wrote it, I looked back through the history of the article. It looks like you were involved, in 2015, with the point I make in my comment. So I wonder if I could get you to have a look at it.
To elaborate here just a little on the point of my comment, I'm quite sure I've worked things out correctly as far as compass directions go. What I'm not certain about is, where the Coalsack would be, in the diagram. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates on Rigel

I understand exactly what the templates are for. However, I removed one of them, because they appear as exactly duplicates on the article, with no visual differences at all. One tag is all that is needed when there is an issue involved (such as NPOV content), especially when they appear exactly the same. I won't be reverting; however, should someone else remove one of the templates, you shouldn't try to reinstate it. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 Thanks. I was careful with this. Under Nomenclature here[2] is linked to talkpage Sections. 'Necessary reverts' and 'RfC: Inclusion of this statement under 'Nomenclature'. There are two problems here, and neither can be resolved easily. Although the tags look the same they are different. Hope this explains this for you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes; I think this is a bug in template:POV: specifying a talk= section in the template (with or without the label) does not generate a link to the section, just to the talk page. I added the page as part of the wikilink and that does generate a section link (but no visual distinction). Elphion (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Nucleosynthesis

Commenting here since this didn't need to go on ANI. Johnson doesn't state that in any few words, but instead made the point in the figure itself, but more importantly in the supplementary data. He gives explicit estimates for the fraction of each element. It's not original research to note that he states exploding stars as the majority source of elements from Oxygen to Scandium, as well as Gallium to Rubidium. So actually, everyone is wrong. In general, I feel this is the best alternative to "everyone is right". Someguy1221 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Right. So it is not Ok to make a generalised statement, but it is OK to revert statement that don't say the contentions. I edited the text to avoid the empass, so that the average editor can read it, but now that is wrong? You have outed me for my behaviour, when the truth is I acted properly, while Attic Salt continues to stray from editorial principles? I tried to avoid the complications but it is just "everoyone's right."? Attic Salt never understood their edits at all, and this is a repeated trait. Yet supernova Tyope II produce spectra that shows hydrogen lines.[3] The assertion is plainly false. If anything, prosecution of these edits nneds to be escalated. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Userpage Typo

You have a typo on your userpage: gember.

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed one-way IBAN for Arianewiki1. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I am gravely concerned with what I am reading about your behavior. It is imperative that you enter this discussion.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 07:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim. I am too, and I spent the whole day writing a response. VQuakr own ANI is worring me from the POV of their own involvemment, and I don't think they have the full picture. I will be posting it right now. I would like to hear Attic Salt's POV too. Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Short Break

Due to the pressures on a current on-going ANI, I need to take a break for a day or so, based on near exhaustion that has been spent over the last several days making various replies. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Banned

Greetings, Arianewiki1. This message is to inform you that, pursuant to consensus here, you are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. For more information, see WP:BAN. For additional information on appealing this ban, see WP:SO. Regards, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Additionally, you are indefinitely banned from interacting with Attic Salt. This one-way interaction ban shall remain in effect if and when your site ban is lifted, until specifically overturned by the community. This sanction will be logged at WP:EDR. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm:

SUMMARY and CLARIFICATION : I'm truly shocked and dismayed by your decision here. I was almost certain it would be dropped or even would go the opposite way. Attic Salt had promised to "I agree not to look at your edit summary and not follow your talk page.", and I requested "I want the harassment and sanction gaming to finish." so "...we can just mutually agree just to stop interacting at all with each other's edits." I pose "Is following Arianewiki1's edits possibly true?" then after this declare "Having said this, I have, yes, viewed your editing history and noted some of the articles you've edited. Honestly, I don't think this is unusual." (and cite how they were doing this! We all move on. (All did you read below the article atop close, because this atop edit ends half-way down the page. e.g. Here[4] .) Even User Dlohcierekim said "I meant above that he'd done a great job providing counter arguments. I don't see Arianewiki's comments as that incivil."

VQuakr launching of this latest ANI was based on this exchange under Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained Where is the abusive behaviour here? I received this notification here[5], claiming "Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. "[6], but they had stated: "Cleaning up your messes is not harassment, and your repeated false accusations of such are grounds for a block or ban. You don't own your own edits, much less this page, so you should have no reason to expect that anyone, ever, is going to give a second's thought to your requests for others to not modify your work." (My response to Attic Salt was because they reverted one of my edits partly because it had no edit summary.) I just pointed out policy, and adding that to the edit summary was to make a Point.

Was that wrong? Reading this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User:Attic Salt shows persistent rv problems without discussion, and they keep doing it by just continuously following my edits?)

You also say: "Evidence to support accusations of hounding is unconvincing, and no one has even spoken up in defense of Ariane, a rare occurrence for an AN/I thread." My responses in this ANI were civil and responded to all their questions. I feel the evidence of hounding via wikihounding were proven, but with examples and Attic Salt openly admitting to: "Having said this, I have, yes, viewed your editing history and noted some of the articles you've edited. Honestly, I don't think this is unusual."

In the ANI I said to them: "OK, but didn't I ask you not to do this? When you placed your 'ban' from your talkpage, I requested this, but the article on Velocity was after this action. As Tigraan advised me not to have you on my watchlist, but now it is OK for you to do that? Can't you this see that is a big problem because it might be seen as targeting as I've stated. It is against policy. You are admitting you are following me. (So my previous ANI, in which you didn't respond BTW, my assertions were likely correct.)"

The ANI I responded to gives examples. The three successive moves to different pages under Response 6 [7] Should I have presented others? Was this not convincing?

You tell me I have to modify my behaviour to return from this indefinite ban, but what else do you do when confronted with actions like Velocity when trying to make constructive edits as seen in this[8]. (Both of them had never edited this page before.) All I did was fix some issues with User:Anomalous+0 submission here.[9] There was no abusive behaviour here. Attic Salt had previously followed me to Talk:Ptolemy#Ptolemy Sources Don't Say He Was Roman (See my response, please.) My next edit was to Lithopsian, who diverted this to Talk:Antares#Magnitudes, asked a simple question (after this edit[10], and immediately got terse responses. (See ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#OWN Behaviour : Admin Review Request] Look at VQuakr reaction.) Even simple questions are requests are attacked. e.g. This exchange here[11]. Saying simpple things like to VQuakr "The cite needed is to show "magnitude x" is a recognised format. The given cites seem to show mixed usage." accused me "No, it isn't. Don't expect others to follow your arbitrary evidentiary standards just because you say so. This is an editorial decision." I went to the Supernova article and undid this edit[12], the next edits finding Attic Salt here[13] then accusing me as the one who wrote it[14]. I go to Supernova nucleosynthesis then to find Attic Salt again[15] (Now I'm blocked, Lithopsian immediately goes to Supernova nucleosynthesis, and says: "Undo of Arianewiki rework and subsequent edits - it wasn't great before, but it was better than this, and importantly more accurate" Grave dancing? (All I did was rearrange it, a explain what I did on the talkpage here[16] ) I go to Apparent magnitude and find instead Lithopsian, then back Supernova again, and and a further revert by Attic Salt,so it goes on. I take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#Disruptive Editing and Sanction Gaming in Supernova Article because I'm being subjected to abusive behaviour.

Considering that Tigraan says "If you truly believe that a dozen strangers on the internet all hate you for no objective reason, I would advise getting medical help. Seriously. You tick all boxes of Paranoia#Paranoid_social_cognition. Do not think they will lock you in an asylum (they won't) and do not think only wusses seek help (if you start coughing blood, you don't wait it out, you go see a doctor - at least I hope)", and it is not thought as 'abusive behaviour'?

Obviously requesting the ban to be dropped is going to be difficult task solely on the complexity of the interactions. My defence in the ANI is the best I could do. I haven't edit warred, I have used talkpages as required, and do do productive contributions, like Photometry (astronomy) or Photographic magnitude.

Please be more specific with this ban, because I'm still confused where it actually went wrong. e.g. VQuakr made on complaint on behalf Attic Salt, for something VQuakr thought was offensive (it clearly wasn't), they use the first interaction between Attic Salt and me to justify that on a IBAN. Unbeknown to VQuakr, Attic Salt admits to following me from page to page as suspected, but I get a one-way IBAN plus indefinite ban? I do think some of the initial negative responses were unaware of the possibility of hounding in the background. Perhaps they might have responded differently? Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• I am sorry that you are hurt by this. I have no doubt that you are a person with genuine value, and an editor with something positive to give to this project. I have no desire to hurt you. But I did not make this decision. I don't know you, and I have nothing against you. I am just a random person who reviewed a discussion as a result of a general request. I reviewed the discussion, and interpreted the consensus. Yes, I specifically reviewed the accusations against you, and the supporting evidence. There is evidence. The accusations are not baseless. You did not acknowledge this. I reviewed the proposals for sanctions against you. The support for these proposals was unanimous. You did not have a single third party defend you. This was open for over a week, which by itself is unusual, and yet not one person spoke to your defense. On the contrary, those who spoke against you are not just some random nobodies, but highly established editors in good standing. As I noted in the close, this state of affairs is almost unheard of. And yet you'd expect this all to be ignored, in favor of your own narrative? You need extremely convincing evidence that everyone involved are all conspiring in bad faith to get you banned for some unspecified reason. I did review your defense, but I see no unambiguous evidence that anyone has a motivation to persecute you. Occam's razor: you are a consistently uncivil and abrasive editor, and you've made a reputation for yourself as such. Your behavior has turned every editor who's familiar with you against you, and your self-evident behavioral conduct is to blame. You're not the victim of a cabal conspiring against you. The fact that you mentioned an editor calling you "paranoid", with zero self-awareness, is, I'm sorry to say, telling. Here's what I'd recommend. Self-reflect on your own behavior. Apologize and promise amends. And then demonstrate all of this in an appeal. Offer a reblock clause, where if you don't follow through, you will be reblocked. Get serious about the changes you need to make, and throw yourself upon the community's mercy. Of course, you may appeal with any argument you want to make, and my advice is merely that; advice. My second suggestion would be to just take the SO in 6 months. You served the time, you're ready to come back, the community gives you a new chance. That's usually how it goes. Lastly, and I would not suggest you do this, but I will make it clear to you that it is an option: you may formally dispute my reading of consensus, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Put it to the community. Note that this is not an opportunity to rehash the discussion, but a simple review of the previous discussion as to whether or not my assessment was correct. It's a community review of my reading of consensus. If you want to rehash the discussion, you should appeal with whatever argument you want to make. But if you think I got the consensus wrong, you should challenge my closure. Let me know if you have any questions! Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: Thanks for the response. You're not hurting me here, but I did read your response and are even more confused. There are only three editors with issues: Attic Salt, Lithopsian and VQuakr. Attic Salt admits to following and wikihounding, I give many examples, they revert anything they disagree with, you present reasonable arguments , even prove it, but now somehow I'm paranoid? They are shown to be sanction gaming with proof, and even when you express frustration, you are accused of being abusive. How does one feel if persistently followed with everything you write? How does Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained end as it has? I don't see it. Where's this 'abuse' to manufacture such a reaction? (Why do people respond like this?[17] I've done nothing like this nor even correspond with them.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

By my count, 11 editors spoke against you. 0 spoke in your defense, other than yourself. 7 of these 11 spoke against the notion that the IBAN was sufficient, and that the more severe alternative (pitched in the OP) was needed. Lithopsian played no part in the discussion. You dominated the overwhelming majority of the discussion. You dominated the overwhelming duration of the discussion. And yet not a single editor bought into your narrative. I'm not sure how else to say it. There was a unanimous consensus to ban you. The behavior that led to the ban was directly proven in the discussion with diffs. I'm sorry, truly I am, but you earned this, and the appropriate response is reflection, acknowledgement, and resolution. No more blaming! No more playing victim! At a certain point, when literally you have a massive discussion examining your behavior, and literally 100% of the feedback is in support of sanctioning you, and not a single person will speak to your defense, then your response becomes a WP:CIR issue. You just gotta acknowledge the issues raised and make changes. Playing the victim is not credible or viable. You have to get serious. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: Q. "The behavior that led to the ban was directly proven in the discussion with diffs." What behaviour specifically? VQuakr expose was something I did two years ago or was within this latest ANI e.g. Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained. 11 editors spoke against me, but did they known of the violation by Attic Salt? Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Really? Are you seriously asking what the allegations are? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding Block Comment to a User Page

@Swarm: It is interesting to see your reaction to this edit[18] and the subsequent response. Adding this banned tag on my User page here[19] is unacceptable, and I request that you remove this immediately. Rules on this are clear; namely; "Like other pages, anyone can edit it, but users generally do not edit other users' pages without their permission." mentioned here If you want to clearly place a block on a user, then use the appropriate template on the User talk page. i.e Template:uw-block|indef=yes|reason=as the User has been banned by the community. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Banned users get tagged as banned using a standardized template, either on their user or talk page. This is standard, and you don’t get to dictate that I am not allowed to correctly document the ban. I re-added it to your user page so that you would not continue to remove it. Frankly, it was that or revoking your talk access. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: Thanks. Next step oversight via Arbitration Committee. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

If you really want to go to arbcom to challenge the standard practice of an admin putting {{Banned user}} on the user page of a banned user, that's your prerogative. I have no issue with you, nor did I do anything wrong. I'm just the uninvolved administrator who happened to be the one to assess the discussion involving you. I have to say, though, your refusal to understand or acknowledge anything that has been thoroughly explained to you since the ban was enacted, along with your general behavior on this page, strikes me as either a fundamental WP:CIR issue, or willful trolling and disruption. It's exceedingly difficult to ignore this when you were banned for "... a protracted pattern of abusive conduct directed at more than one editor...", and I made a note in my closing summary that "...Arianewiki bludgeons the discussion repeatedly, effectively dismissing all behavioral complaints and reducing all unfavorable commentators to bad-faith grudge-holders and hounders. ... On top of that, I see no concessions from Ariane and no attempts at voluntary improvement." Your conduct on this page fits that profile exactly. You refuse to admit any sort of wrongdoing on your part, you reject direct complaints and explanations as to how you're in the wrong, and instead you go on the offensive and attack your perceived "opponents". In other words, the entirety of your behavior since the ban was enacted, appears to be nothing short of a direct continuation of the behavior that led to the ban. Again, I have nothing against you personally, and I wish you nothing but the best IRL, but I cannot allow a banned user to use their talk page as a platform to continue the same exact conduct that the community banned them for. Therefore, your talk page access has been revoked. If and when you would like to appeal your ban, you may request talk page reinstatement, or submit your appeal directly, via WP:UTRS. Regards, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Plasma

Thank you for your explanation on the Plasma page. I've been dilatory about responding because I don't visit my talk page very often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgoldnyxnet (talk • contribs) 05:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)