User talk:Mattdaviesfsic/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mattdaviesfsic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

February 2023

About archives

Thank you for your comments on my draft. By the way links that may be useful for archiving:

I hope you get better soon. thanks ! SilverMatsu (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Silvermatsu:, thanks for getting in touch. I prefer to manually archive, I'll be honest (don't know why!), but thanks anyhow. Thanks for the well wishes! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Head of a national academy of sciences not notable enough for you?

Hi! How come you rejected the draft article on Draft:Toshmuhammad Sarimsoqov? This person was literally head of the Academy of Science of a country which currently has 40 million residents. Perhaps the person is not white enough for you? I suggest you read the notability criteria:

"Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. ... The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)." Nataev ^talk 18:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nataev: I understand that you might be frustrated by the decision to decline the draft, but I must remind you that Wikipedia editors are required to assume good faith and to refrain from casting aspersions – such as accusations of racial bias – against other editors without very good cause, as these may be considered personal attacks. I suggest that you strike out your remark by placing it inside <s>...</s> tags. (Talk page watcher) XAM2175 ^(T) 18:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

As a separate suggestion for improving the article, you might consider using the |trans-title= and |trans-quote= parameters available within citation templates like {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} alongside the standard |title= and |quote= options. These will allow you provide titles and quotes in both the original language and English, which helps reviewers and readers. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, XAM2175! I'm not the author of the draft article. Reviewers should just use Google Translate if they don't speak the languages used in the sources. Actually, non-English sources are allowed on enwiki. There's no reason for refusing to accept a draft because is relies on non-English sources. As for my words above, I stand by them and am not striking them out or anything. Nataev ^talk 19:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I apologise for assuming that you were the author. Nevertheless, I maintain that your comment is inappropriate, and further I suggest that it's unhelpful to state [reviewers] should just use Google Translate if they don't speak the languages used in the sources in response to a genuine good-faith suggestion of an improvement to the article. I believe very firmly that foreign-language sources are of value to the English-language Wikipedia, but I also recognise and accept that article reviewers are volunteers, and that the citing sources policy includes this guidance: In the case of non-English sources, it may be helpful to quote from the original text and then give an English translation. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC). Edited to add: I composed this reply in response to Nataev's comment as it stood at 19:11 UTC, prior to subsequent modifications. 19:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Great, but the quote you provided literally says "it may be helpful". It doesn't say "it's imperative". What do you mean reviewers are volunteers? How about the person who created the draft? Is he or she not a volunteer? Nataev ^talk 19:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it says may be helpful, which is exactly the spirit in which I gave the advice. I repeat that I apologise for assuming that you are the author of this draft, but ultimately – you complained that the reviewer made a mistake in assessing notability, I suggested a way in which the article could be improved to help better demonstrate notability, and now you're wikilawyering over how that's not your problem. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not just my problem - it should be everyone's problem. The fact that a reviewer based in the UK decided not to accept an article about the head of a national academy of sciences just because he doesn't speak any of the languages used in the sources. And the sources cited in the article are not just in Russian: there's one source in English and another in Uzbek. Nataev ^talk 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that a reviewer based in the UK decided not to accept an article about the head of a national academy of sciences just because he doesn't speak any of languages used in the sources. This is not a "fact", it's an assumption on your behalf, and another potentially-actionable aspersion. I'm genuinely concerned here at the extent to which you are trying to paint malice into the original review decision, and the uncollegial way in which you're responding to good-faith suggestions that have a basis in project guidelines. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

1. The reviewer declined the draft article. 2. He explained his action as follows: "Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9.1)". As I've pointed out above, the person is clearly notable. And I do believe that if the draft had been about a white head of an academy of sciences, they'd have accepted it. This is indeed an assumption - I'm using the third conditional after all. But let's wait and see what the reviewer has to say. As for aspersion, this reviewer's action is itself potentially actionable. Nataev ^talk 20:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nataev: Making a substantial addition to your comment eleven minutes after posting it, and without any indication that you've done so, is in my opinion pushing the definition of "short while" included in WP:TALK#REVISE. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

So? What are you trying to say? "A short while" is a fluid concept. To be clear, I didn't revise anything that I had written before - just added a reference to the verifiability page. And did I mention I stand by my words? To reiterate, if the draft had been about some MEMBER, yet alone a head, of an academy of sciences in a predominantly white or Western country, the reviewer would've mostly likely accepted it. Nataev ^talk 19:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I repeat: jumping straight to an accusation of racial basis is failing to assume good faith, when it's entirely possible that the reviewer simply wasn't familiar with the WP:PROF guide, or didn't realise that the President of a Soviet republic's Academy of Sciences would be included within its scope. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

And it begs the question: should a person who doesn't know WP:PROF even be a reviewer? Nataev ^talk 20:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and we would have all been better off if you'd started here with that question rather than the unfounded personal attack, seeing as it's at least somewhat close to assuming good faith. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

And how are we worse off now? At the very least, this reviewer might read the guidelines before making a decision next time on drafts. Also, the draft article in question should be promptly moved to the mainspace. Nataev ^talk 20:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I have boldy moved the article.

At the very least, this reviewer might read the guidelines before making a decision next time on drafts. This objective could have been achieved without any of your antagonism. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Good job! There are articles about this person in four other languages. As for my 'antagonism', I stand by my words. This sort of bias and discrimination and/or or ineptitude - whatever you call it - should end. And calling the move 'bold' is, well, bold. How brave of you to think that a renowned (not where you live, though) mathematician and a former head of a national academy of sciences is worthy of an article! Nataev ^talk 21:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I described it as bold because I'm not an AfC reviewer and I've never before moved somebody else's draft to mainspace, so it is a process with which I'm unfamiliar and less than entirely confident. It involved no element of judgement as to the subject being "worthy" of an article, because I'm aware of the WP:NPROF guidance, and aware of the stature of the Academies of Sciences of the USSR, and thus never had any doubt as to subject's notability.

And by the way – I agree that English Wikipedia needs to do better in dealing with its many systematic biases, but your sanctimonious attitude is not only unhelpful but also disturbingly uncivil. XAM2175 ^(T) 00:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have to be civil with incompetent or potentially racist reviewers. Such systematic biases have existed for way too long on enwiki. Nataev ^talk 01:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Referred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Nataev casting aspersions. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Nataev - I think XAM2175 has answered your points. I'm not going to contribute to this discussion if you don't want to assume good faith. Editors often make mistakes - and I find it helpful when someone points it out for myself - but if I do, I'd rather not be alleged to be racist in the process. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Declining: == Your submission at Articles for creation: Ron Weidberg (January 10) ==

You declined my submission Articles for creation: Ron Weidberg (January 10). The reason stated is: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified.

The resources Iquoted are:

1. "Weidberg Ron" (https://www.imi.org.il/Ron-Weidberg-Israel-Music-Institute?language=eng).Israel Music Institute. Retrieved 29 April 2022.

2. "Ron Weidberg" (https://www.israelcomposers.org/Members.aspx?lang=English&letter=W&i d=173). Israel Composers' League. Retrieved 29 April 2022.

3. Seter, Ronit (20 January 2001). "Weidberg, Ron" (https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.42195). Grove Music Online. Retrieved 29 October 2022.

4. "Dr. Ron Weidberg" (https://web.archive.org/web/20220430073817/https://www.openu.ac.il/en/personalsites/DrRonWeidberg.aspx). The Open University of Israel.

5. Jaffe, Kenneth (2011). Solo Vocal Works on Jewish Themes. The Scarecrow Press, Inc. ISBN 978-0-8108-6135-0.

ALL the resources are of established reliable sources that can be verified and not dependent on the subject of the page:

1. Israeli Music Institute

2. Israeli Composers' League

3. Grove Music Online which is one of the most reliable and selective source on music

4. The open University of Israel

5. A printed book

Can you explain why "the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources"? Motizin (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Because 4/5 of the inline citations on the page are from the subject of the article. We need significant, independent coverage in secondary sources, for an article to meet WP:GNG. Hope that helps, Motizin. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

draft:Seán Millar

Hello Matt,

Thank you for your recent review & feedback of my draft on the artist Seán Millar. Your feedback on the references that I couldn't use (like Discogs) was so helpful. I didn't know that Discogs wasn't allowed as it is still on so many pages. I have since removed the things you listed and adjusted the article accordingly. I have resubmitted it and also dealt with the way I have too many references as mentioned by someone else

I am not sure if you are able to review it again as it is a long article and might put others off from reviewing it. Hopefully it is good to go!

Thanks again Matt, Susan

link to draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Se%C3%A1n_Millar Rebeldiamondz (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks Rebeldiamondz. Looks ready to be accepted, but I'll leave it to another reviewer as I'm technically meant to be on a Wikibreak!

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Effectuation

I know what you mean about borderline. I see it as on the wrong side of the border. My decline rationale may interest you. I do not ask that you agree with it, only that you consider it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Your experience wins against mine, Timtrent (!): absolutely understand your rationale (and, if anything, kind of agree...!). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:List of teams to overcome 2–0 series deficits

I believe that I have made the needed changes for this article to be approved, by adding more of a background on the topic. Can you please check and see if the needed changes were made? 131.247.224.28 (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Request on 01:47:31, 6 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Przybylop

Przybylop (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Noah Zuhdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for taking time to review my draft/entry on Noah Zuhdi and put in helpful suggestions. I was wondering if you would be willing to take another look at it now that things have been adjusted and/or corrected according to guidelines and your advice. Thank you.

Przybylop (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Przybylop, thanks for making these minor changes - just accepted it: congratulations! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft review request

Hi Matt

Just wondering if I could put in a polite request to you for feedback on this article submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brett_Gregory

I'm eager to ensure that the article is up to Wikipedia's standards and accurately reflects the information I've gathered. Your expertise and insights would be invaluable in this process.

Best

James JamesMarsdan (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi JamesMarsdan, thanks for getting in touch. From a very brief look, I would say:

The last line, starting "In addition", looks quite close to promotional material, so I would advocate for its removal. The sources, however, could probably be used to help verify other things in the article, or add new information.
I have a feeling the infobox could be expanded with other information, but the information there appears to be unsourced.

Given you have submitted it, I'll leave it up to the reviewer to accept/decline it within reason. However, I have been nice and helped fix some minor referencing errors for you - see MOS:CITEPUNCT for what I have corrected.

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed the comments you have asked for before accepting

Good day,

I have seen your comment on the page i have created on the rejection and it was all fixed and resubmitted again now.

Are you the same person who will review it and accept it after the comments you have mentioned are fixed?

Thank you. KH (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant, Khalid Bin Abdulaziz - just accepted it. Congratulations! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The page has been taken down to draft i do not know the issue nor a comment was left for me to understand KH (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Khalid Bin Abdulaziz, I've followed it up with them on your talk page. Feel free to check there. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

He has said that you can put it back if you feel like it to published and asked me to explain and i already did so i hope it is okay now for you to put it back if you want, thank you KH (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Have done so - thanks for your patience, Khalid Bin Abdulaziz! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Add this small token to your growing collection with pride!

		The Railways Barnstar
		Thank you for your edit on Velestino-Kalampaka railway kind words should follow kind acts, so thank you! - ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ 18:00, 09 Febuary 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, The Emperor of Byzantium - and well done on having it accepted! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: School of Agribusiness and Rural Management (SABRM), Dr. RPCAU

Hello Mattdaviesfsic. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of School of Agribusiness and Rural Management (SABRM), Dr. RPCAU, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. BangJan1999 23:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

BangJan1999, it's been deleted anyway under G11. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed your comments for Draft:GITAM_Institute_of_Medical_Sciences_and_Research

Hi Matt,

Thanks for your review and comments. I've rewritten the article and have included citations for Draft:GITAM_Institute_of_Medical_Sciences_and_Research. please check if it is ready for mainspace.

Best Regards, Writeindia (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Writeindia

Ferrer Ferran

There isn't any title in french. I don't understand what is wrong. I eliminate the references in the title. If that is the problem. 92.217.71.53 (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Ferrer Ferran

I put the refs in the text and I corrected the spelling mistake in the title Biography. Thank you for you attention. I hope, it can be submitted now. 92.217.71.53 (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Ferrer Ferran 92.217.71.53 (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for doing that. I've got no opinion on the article as it stands (although some of the references are still in bold - see the contents box, for example). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Should say - I'll leave it up to another reviewer to accept/decline it next time. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Declined article / request for more feedback

Hello, @Mattdaviesfsic! Thank you very much for reviewing my article. Your comment reads: "Lead is still poorly written, after 2 declines already. Draft title may not be good for acceptance." I'd be happy to make the appropriate edits, but could you please elaborate on this? It would be most helpful if you could specify the parts that raised your concern. Is it more about the phrasing of the lead or the external sources I used? If so, which? I would appreciate it if you could send me any details. Thank you! Nyjja (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nyjja, thanks for getting in touch. Yes, the lead (primarily the second paragraph of it) is the main problem, being too promotional) sounding. It may be better to remove it altogether (which would push it a lot further towards being accepted when you resubmit) - the references could, theoretically, be used to insert other information as well. Hope that helps.

With regards to the title, I'd be happier if it was simply "The Subtitlers' Association" or similar, unless it is more commonly known under the current title. The actual title would be up to the reviewer who accepts it, however.

Hope that helps! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mattdaviesfsic! Thank you very much for your answer. I edited the second paragraph, leaving out the parts that might sound too promotional, and left only the neutral information (at least that was the result I aimed for!). Would you be so kind as to check it now? I'd very much appreciate your assessment before I resubmit the article.

As for the title, "SUBTLE – The Subtitlers' Association" is the full name, but the association is mostly known simply as SUBTLE, so I hope it's okay to leave it like that. Nyjja (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Nyjja, apologies for the delayed response. I think it looks alright now. Regarding the title, that would be up to the next reviewer as they see fit. I won't review it (for a few reasons), but well done and great work. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Nyjja (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stedman_Blower_Architects

Matt This is the 3rd time that my article has been rejected for references, i am a bit surprised, as I thought I had put plenty of checkable references. I just don't understand what more I can do...can you help me understand what needs to be done to get this page cleared. Culturalconnection (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Culturalconnection, my comment on the article should provide the justification for the decline. When this is fixed, it could probably be accepted. Hope that helps. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to give me a bit more detail of what and where is missing? That would be of great help. Culturalconnection (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Culturalconnection, all that's really needed is references for the directors section and the foundation section below that. Hope that helps. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

OC Music News

Hello, @Mattdaviesfsic

I created the page OC Music News and it was moved to a draft. Can you possibly let me know what the issues were and how I might improve the article to get it accepted?

Thank you Punxskaoc (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Punxskaoc, as it stands:

There are barely any inline references, so almost all of it is unsourced;
Some of the references are not allowed per WP:RSPS, e.g. Twitter;
Some sections feel promotional, e.g. 'Website & Design' section;
External links are not allowed in the article body;
The layout of images in the article is relatively poor.

I hope this clears up any confusion. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

3RR

I'm not going 3RR, but this (diff) is clearly wrong. Deal as you see fit. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Already got my eye on it, thanks. Not only is it unsourced - but is there any other rolling stock article which has such a table: AFAIK, there isn't, so inconsistency is another justification potentially. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a common table yes. Let me think - possibly some of the Desiro articles? 10mmsocket (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

British Rail Class 380 10mmsocket (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Feels like WP:FANCRUFT to me, but I'm not willing to use that as a justification just yet! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

British Rail Class 755 , British Rail Class 720 , British Rail Class 423 , British Rail Class 488 , British Rail Class 484, 10mmsocket (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

British Rail Classes 485 and 486. I'm going to stop looking now. Fundamentally any number of DMU, EMU articles have this excessive level of detail. I'm with you on them being fancruft. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Not got the time to go through and scrub them all off with that justification yet - not sure if a wider perspective at WP:UKRAIL might be helpful? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Let me give it some thought. Good point though. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

There is, I feel, a distinction to be drawn between 1) the enormous sprawling diaries of movements and status changes at a unit-by-unit level, which Class 488 is getting towards, and 2) simple tables of static detail at a fleet level, such as already noted at Classes 380, 720, and 755, and also to be found at 195, 196, 231, 331, 465, 466, 756, and a few others. The former might well fall into the sorts of descriptive categories described by WP:FANCRUFT, but quite honestly applications of that term to the latter category strike me as unnecessarily and unhelpfully pejorative. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

draft:Beet sugar factory

Hi Matt, you moved the new page Beet sugar factory to draft space, because it is too closely worded and structured to another article, Sugar beet. Please consider my reaction that this is only natural, because the intention is to subsequently remove the sections of the sugar beet page that handle beet sugar factories and the history of the sugar beet industry. The result would be separate and much more cohesive pages about sugar beet and about beet sugar factories, just like there are separate pages for sugar cane and sugar mills.

From the history of the Sugar beet page, you can see that I already put considerable effort in improving and updating the references of that page, but I require the page to be split in order to achieve higher quality. In particular referencing to specific pages in books, for which I changed the citation style on the Beet sugar factory to sfn.Grieg2 (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Grieg2, absolutely. I just think it would be better for such a split to happen whilst one is in draftspace (although I'm more than happy to just accept it when you've finished), so that the article isn't publicly WIP, if that makes sense! Good work so far, I look forward to seeing how you get on! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Matt, I think I understand your idea about the split being in draft space. The sugar beet page would indeed have duplicate content for perhaps a day before the 'moved' content is replaced, but I prepared that by changing the sugar beet page to use list defined reference style, so it can be done rather quickly.

Of course I could first write a much better beet sugar factory page instead of using the old sections of the sugar beet page, but it would mean that I would invest a huge amount of time without being sure that the split takes place. Furthermore, others could make a valid objection that this effectively destroys the page history, making the split even less sure. I need the split, because when writing e.g. pages like Amsterdamsche Stoom Suikerraffinaderij, I noted that the technical aspects of the (beet) sugar industry have very bad coverage on Wikipedia, making that when I write about a particular company, I cannot suffice with referencing another wiki page.

Therefore please accept the beet sugar factory page as is.Grieg2 (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Bryan Carrington wiki page

Thanks for the review. I have made the requested changes and look forward to your feedback. Thanks. Can you approve my article. TazaFootball (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, TazaFootball. I've removed the birthdate as his Twitter page (whilst also not necessarily useful per WP:RSPS) doesn't show the month, day and year, so isn't entirely helpful. If you submit it it will almost certainly be accepted. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you I just submitted it TazaFootball (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

British Rail Class 171‎

Keep an eye on British Rail Class 171‎. We may have some trouble bubbling up - see comment "I don't need a bloody source because I know it". I'm not going to go 3RR so it needs other editors attention. Thanks. (Duplicate message also left for XAM2175) 10mmsocket (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)