User talk:MelanieN/Archive 77

This is an archive of past discussions about User:MelanieN. 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 70

←

Archive 75

Weather

You warned an editor, a long time one about editing in an incorrect and negative manner. I and another editor seem to have run up against a few editors who feel they are a. competent. b. emboldened. c. free to close a topic on a talk page which is meant to further discussion not shut it down. d. be disruptive and "throw weight" e. collude with each other in a nonsensical form. and f. once in a while do something which is constructive. Could you do something about it? I see that articles about weather have had this problem before, thank you. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Unprotecting Confetti (Little Mix album)

Hi MelanieN. Would you be able to unprotect Confetti (Little Mix album)? I have asked for an admin to move the draft to mainspace, but this has not been done. The draft article (Draft:Confetti (Little Mix album)) is ready to be accepted and moved over to the mainspace as the album has been released, and there are numerous album reviews and enough sources to pass WP:NALBUMS. Thanks. Ss112 16:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ss2012. If you feel the draft is ready now, you should resubmit it, using the "Finished drafting? Submit for review!" button. If a reviewer accepts it this time, they will move your draft to that title (or get help if they aren't able to do it themselves). What you should NOT do is try to paste it into the existing redirect, as another user did several times before I protected it. Some cautions: do NOT resubmit it until you have taken the advice of previous reviewers: "Sourcing for the tour needs to come from external news sources. This is still missing album reviews / previews." "Do not resubmit until after it has detailed album reviews and charting." "If this draft is resubmitted again prior to release, negative action may be taken." Your draft says "The album was released on 6 November 2020" which is tomorrow so it is inaccurate to say "was" released. Bottom line: I advise that you not resubmit it for review until after it has actually been released and gotten a few reviews.-- MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Actually I see that User:Doggy54321 has already resubmitted it, yesterday. With any luck, a little time will pass before the reviewer gets to it; hopefully by that time you will have been able to add a few reviews. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey Melanie. It’s Doggy54321. The album has been released in multiple territories, hence the reviews and the "Composition" section, as well as the past tense pronouns. The album has also met all the criteria that is stated in the declining boxes at the top of the article. I also submitted the draft about half an hour ago

. If you could actually delete the article, that would be better as my friend User:DarkGlow has offered to accept the draft (being NPOV, of course) because they think it is notable and deserves to be in the mainspace, which I agree with. They aren’t a page mover, though, so they can’t move the page. If you could delete the page instead, that would be great. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Doggy. I am not going to interfere in the review process. That's not my department. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

As someone in the "review department", it would not be interfering, it would be helping me to review the draft much more efficiently. – DarkGlow (✉) 19:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, nobody is asking you to "interfere in the review process". Just to unprotect (or delete, as Doggy54321 suggested) the target article Confetti (Little Mix album) so the draft can be approved by another user, then moved by them, not you. That's not you interfering with the review of the draft whatsoever. Also, in your initial response to your message, perhaps it wasn't your intention, but you got several things wrong. My username is Ss112, not Ss2012. I've been a registered editor on Wikipedia since 2006—I know you wouldn't know that, but I do know how to submit a draft if that's what I were to wanting to do. I wasn't asking for advice on how to submit the draft. The draft is not mine; I did not write it nor contribute substantially to it. A look at the edit history would show you this. Sorry if this sounds rude and standoffish, but I don't need to be treated like a newbie on how to submit a draft. I asked if you could unprotect the article in question, which you seem to not remember that you protected so that only admins can edit it. That's all we're asking here. Also, maybe it isn't November 6 where you live, but it already is in some countries in the world, like in Australia and New Zealand. Wikipedia isn't (at least entirely) written from a US time zone point of view. Once an album is released in some parts of the world where it is already such a date, articles can be updated to say they have been released. Finally, the album does have reviews. They're in the album ratings template just below the infobox, which you can see by visiting Draft:Confetti (Little Mix album). Just clarifying. Thanks. Ss112 19:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Having had this brought to my attention by DarkGlow, I agree that unprotecting the page will allow the AfC process to continue and have gone ahead and done so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thank you! There's still the issue of moving the draft over, as I do not have page mover rights (I did apply recently but was denied). – DarkGlow (✉) 21:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill and DarkGlow: Regular page movers aren't able to move the page at the moment either, as the page still has admin access required to move it. Can this protection be removed? Ss112 21:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, it should have been unprotected as of my prior message, but at any rate I've gone ahead and move it to mainspace per your request. It still needs the standard post-AfC cleanup. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that you all have worked this out. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Activist and personal attacks

MelanieN, would you please review Activist's recent behaviors. I recently removed an edit here [[1]] as UNDUE. Activist reverted the edit with an edit comment "Undid Springee's latest whitewashing"[[2]]. They followed this with similar comments on the article talk page "This is well sourced, notable material that Springee has removed. He does this regularly, whitewashing articles about right-wing political figures, so this is no surprise."[[3]]. The editor has been previously warned about such behavior [[4]], and your own warning here [[5]] (I think the section header is broken). I think the accusations of bad faith have gone too far. Would you please offer a suggest for handling this? Springee (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Activist is right (though they might have worded that better), and your removal appears to me to be part of a pattern that looks like whitewashing. Maybe that's not your motivation, but that appears to be the effect of many of your edits. Without looking at your edits, we can guess the likely bias. If it weren't properly sourced, you'd have at least one policy leg to stand on, but here you don't. It just smacks of misusing UNDUE weight as an excuse, and I see UNDUE being misused so much by so many that I almost wish we deprecated it, and I only rarely refer to it, and only for obvious cases. That's my impression. I have no intention of making a case out of this, but you should know that impressions are out there, and I doubt that Activist is the only one with eyes. I certainly have my own biases, but I'm very careful with properly-sourced content. It appears that the deleted content has been restored and backed up with more RS. -- Valjean (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. We can debate if this material is DUE. I don't think it is and I think it smacks of RECENT to run around and add such content when the total picture of what did or did not happen is not clear. I removed the content as UNDUE and RECENT. Is this really going to be what we will want in the article 10 years from now? Regardless, that doesn't matter. Others disagreed and restored it with additional sourcing which does at least help address UNDUE (if not RECENT). All that is fine and part of the editorial process. Accusing editors of "whitewashing" after prior warnings is not supposed to be part of the process. Activist is welcome to dispute my reasons on the talk page but this is far from the first time they have been warned about this sort of personal attack. That is the part that needs to stop. Springee (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sorry. Yes. You've been deleting material that refers to Schlapp's behavior 20 years ago, or maybe you're Methusala, and so it's recent to you. I just restored a removed Wikilink to the Brooks Brothers Riot. Activist (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Please be clear when making accusations against me. It reads like you are accusing me of removing a link to the Brooks Brothers Riot. That appears to be recently added material [[6]] suspiciously added by a new editor with one edit. They didn't include a link when first added so why would you suggest someone removed it? The name calling just illustrates my concern. We don't have to agree but CIVIL is policy. Incidentally, why would you thank me for the Schlapp edit if you wanted to revert it?[[7]] Springee (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Now you're inferring I'm involved in sockpuppetry, Springee? I'm afraid not. Melanie can probably check the IP for the User who left that edit. I'd assumed it was a shard of prior edits that you'd removed before, and the Brooks Brothers Riot didn't have a Wikilink. You'll notice that the edit was not well written, used the British spelling for the word "organize" (organise), and MelanieN can probably check the IP address for that editor, which would give her a location for it. By the way, CFredkin was finally blocked for sockpuppetry, and not the obvious COI and paid editing he was doing. Activist (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

What? Where did I accuse you of being a sock? Since you are accusing me of removing the BB Riot link can you show where it was first added? I have no idea who CFredkin is. I don't see any CFredkin edits on the Schlapp page going back to mid 2015[[8]]. Honestly many of your accusations are hard to follow. For example here you say I've been "Wikistalking [you] for years"[[9]]. Did we have any interactions prior to March of this year? Springee (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing like expressing concern about questionable behavior only to be met with more of the same right here on an admin's TP, and without any diffs to support their aspersions against Springee. It goes beyond the pale. I can understand why Americans are a little edgy but it doesn't excuse PAs and incivility on WP. Springee, you did the right thing so let MelanieN handle it now. Atsme 💬 📧 18:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Activist, you were warned against casting aspersions against other people as long ago as 2017, when you accused User:Niteshift36 of COI.[10] I see you are still at it. You know that accusing other editors of wrongdoing is not allowed here, except in a formal setting such as AN or ANI, with evidence. If you feel that User:Springee is not editing in a neutral manner, or is wikistalking you, you could report them to ANI; maybe User:Valjean would support you. But I don’t recommend it unless you have a lot stronger evidence; your accusations would probably boomerang. What you must NOT do is keep accusing them of such things in edit summaries, or on article talk pages (where the rule is: discuss the content, not other editors). BTW Springee did not accuse you of sockpuppetry, and no, I can’t check IP addresses - I am not a checkuser. Activist, I will put a formal warning on your page about casting aspersions, and that will be the end of my involvement, unless people bring me evidence that you are still accusing Springee or other people inappropriately. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I could fill a page with his repeated allegations of COI, without evidence, that he has continually refused to take to ANI. Maybe it'll actually sink in this time. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I had warned him about this myself, two years ago. I just gave him a final warning. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, Activist is continuing with inappropriate personal attacks/inappropriate comments [[11]] [[12]] (You are aware of this recent one [[13]]) [[14]] [[15]] [[16]]. Activist is not a new editor and should no longer be under the illusion that such comments are acceptable on an article talk page. Looking at their talk page it's clear this inability to accept criticism of their edits extends back to long before I cross their path. Springee (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Apparent error with new subsection heading

Re this, I don't think the !votes that followed the "Comment" referred to the comment, but rather to your original proposal. The only thing that clearly applies to the comment is the "Yes" from user JohndanR. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right, Mandruss. I have fixed it. Thanks for the nudge. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks

There was a recent discussion on Talk:Hurricane Eta page whether or not something should be included on the Hurricane Eta page and when I voiced my opinion on the matter, I was personally attacked. This is the third or fourth time I've been personally attacked in the past two weeks, with the others being on the Talk:Hurricane Zeta and my own talk page. I let them go at first since they were new editors and other editors helped me, but this last one was by an administrator, who also claimed that I "didn't know how to debate," which I find HIGHLY offensive. Can this please be looked into?

Thanks in advance! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

None of what I wrote there could be construed as a personal attack. Maybe I was being harsh with the debate references, but it seems that if anything, ChessEric is the one who is being unreasonable here. I'm not even an administrator. If there is a civility problem here, if anything, it'd be the WP:SHOUT'ing of ChessEric in that discussion, a comment in which they did not even try to rebut my latest arguments. It is also rude for User:ChessEric to come here without the courtesy of pinging me. For my part, I'm disengaging from discussions with them on the talk page; I will for now only be replying to others.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, User:ChessEric. I took a look at the most recent posts on the Hurricane Eta article. I see you and User:Jasper Deng disagreeing. I see him calling you “wrong, just wrong” and “dead wrong”, and accusing you of “not even bothering to do research about KAC”. You immediately accused him of “criticizing or attacking” you. He got a little nasty or sarcastic with “I'm sorry that it's unreasonable to expect you to satisfy the burden of proof for your claims.” You replied “that was just disrespectul”, adding that you “will not stand for personal attacks” and would report it. So I guess your note here is your report of “personal attacks”. IMO that’s an exaggeration. Jasper got a little heated but basically kept the discussion about content - as it is supposed to be. I am hereby reminding Jasper to discuss content, not other editors; you can disagree and cite your evidence without unnecessary language like “dead wrong”. You are planning to disengage with ChessEric and that may be a good idea, at least in the short term. I am hereby suggesting to you, ChessEric, that you be less thin-skinned; don’t be so eager to escalate from “that was disrespectful” to a federal case. Don't be so quick to take offense. Stay focused on the content issues and on supporting your opinions with evidence.

I see there has been a lot of strong disagreement at recent hurricane articles and user talk pages, involving more than just the two of you - people hurling accusations at each other and deleting each other’s posts. I encourage everyone to become a little less combative, less focused on how other people are behaving. Focus on the content and the evidence, and you’ll be fine. Remember why we are all here: to build an encyclopedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No worries

I've already been given a 48 hours vacation from the Trump article. I've no intentions of further trying to restore the longstanding practice, until a consensus for it emerges, if it does. PS: Myself & Mandruss haven't been seeing eye-to-eye lately (don't know what's changed), but anyways... GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Transition_Integrity_Project

Can I ask why you prefer straight quotes to typographical or ″smart quotes″? You have repeatedly replaced them on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transition_Integrity_Project

Mbierman (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. As I pointed out on the article talk page (maybe you didn't get the ping), Wikipedia's Manual of Style says to use straight quotes and not curly quotes; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation characters. They need to be changed back to straight quotes; do you want to self-revert or shall I fix them? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Since you haven't responded I have gone ahead and restored the straight quotation marks. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't get your ping, sorry about that.

Discussion about First Lady and Second Gentleman-designate titles in infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff

Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Closing edit requests

Edit requests are not discussions, by definition, especially when there is no commenting after the "answer". A separate closure is usually redundant, and doing one gives others the impression that it's necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to make it easier for them to be sent to archive. And to indicate, on that overstuffed talk page, that "this is one you can ignore". Will they be archived promptly anyhow? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Per #13, edit requests may be manually archived 24 hours after the "answer" (no closure required). It also says, "provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the 'answer'", which was an attempt to allow constructive discussion of the "answer". That's been problematic, in my opinion, because a lot of the follow-on discussion is inappropriate or inconsequential and shouldn't affect early archival. In any case, we generally don't need a close for an edit request. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I won't do any more. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Legislative Council of Hong Kong

The vandal by IP starts all the way from 13 Nov, is that still "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection"? -AINH (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And btw he just reverted again-AINH (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, AINH. I see one reverted IP edit on the 22nd, and one from today that has not been reverted. Before that there was one on the 17th that wasn’t reverted until the 21st, and before that several on the 13th, 14th and 15th. I might have protected for a few days at that time, but in order to apply protection we have to see significant RECENT vandalism. (For my own philosophy on when and how to protect pages, see User:MelanieN/Page protection.) If it continues at the rate of several a day, or multiple over a few recent days, you could ask again at RFPP. BTW you should put a note on the article talk page, explaining why you are reverting - why you believe your version is correct and the IP changes are wrong. It will strengthen your evidence that the other edits are disruptive, if you have attempted to discuss at the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

U:ChongTsz had already given multiple sources, the IP just won't listen-AINH (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

AINH, don't tell me. That does you no good. Say it on the article talk page. And INCLUDE the sources. Believe me, this is necessary. It will establish who is editing in good faith and who is not. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: your changes on Sidney Powell

Your changes to the lede made it cumbersome, wordy, and mealy-mouthed. There is no reason to go into detail about Trump's dissatisfaction with Powell's coverage on Fox News, and also no reason to write a sentence about how two publications have called her theories conspiracy theories. We can call these theories conspiracy theories in wikipedia's voice, because a consensus of RS (as well as a consensus of editors on the talk page) say they are.

More generally, please refer to the debate in the talk page for Powell, before making such substantive edits to the lede. We have achieved consensus on the talk page, that the final paragraph of the lede will describe Powell's promotion of conspiracy theories. The only debate is whether we will call her a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence of the lede. (For example, the admin Gorillawarfare disagrees with calling Powell a conspiracy theorist, but agrees that we should have the last paragraph be structured around her promotion of conspiracy theories, especially about the 2020 election.) Thanks. CozyandDozy (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you are talking about. Aside from a few minor tweaks, all I did was move a few sentences - WITHOUT CHANGING THEM - into what I believed to be more logical positions.[17] I see that since then they have been rearranged again, to put all the conspiracy theories into one paragraph. But none of the detail was my doing. In particular, the "coverage on Fox News" material had been in the lead for at least 24 hours when I moved that material, and you can see from the diff above that it was already there when I moved the sentence. That's all for my talk page. I will join the discussion at the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Does this mean I get to vote twice?? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I suspect not. @Xaosflux: Something for you. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN and QEDK: short answer: no. Long answer, no - however, you appear to have multiple accounts which meet the suffrage requirements for voting (MelanieN, MelanieN alt); you received this message twice as it was sent to each page, one of which is a redirect to this page - while having to be sent in a different batch job due to the size of the message list. While you may use one (and only one) of your accounts for voting, I strongly recommend you use this account if you want to vote. If you have any follow up questions, please ping me or hit us up at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Coordination. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's most eligible...voter." GeneralNotability (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure she was joking 👀 but jokes aside, thanks for the explanation, makes sense. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I see now that it says that in the first sentence of the invitation. I had pretty much forgotten about that alternate account, which I use only when traveling - and who is traveling nowadays? Anyhow, yes, I was joking, but you never know these days. Maybe the vote would not be certified until this issue was resolved. Did she vote twice? Throw out all the ballots! I wonder how many notices User:Bishonen gets? I think it should be Bishzilla that votes. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bishzilla among others, Melanie. The issue is quite profoundly discussed on my own page and Floquenbeam's. Bishonen | tålk 21:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC).

Definitely worth a read. The mere idea of Bishzilla and Floquenstein's Monster having offspring is enough to make me hide under the bed. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Then you should have a stiff drink before reading this, Melanie. It's way old, but still.. pretty scary. Bishonen | tålk 22:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC).

Request protection for Jens Erik Gould page again

Melanie, could you protect Jens Erik Gould's page again? The current person has reverted the article for Jens Erik Gould multiple times within 24 hours, despite requests to discuss the changes on the Talk page. Also, changes demonstrably are opinion of the editor's, and have messed up other citations in the process. I will request at the usual page if you prefer, instead of here. WmLawson (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, WmLawson. I have semi-protected it for two months this time. Probably some sockpuppetry going on along with the BLP violations. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Melanie, can you actually read the article and all the sources provided? Anyone with common sense can see that the user above has an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsgivethiscontext (talk • contribs) 06:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Letsgivethiscontext, the place to discuss the content is the article talk page. Be sure to supply sources that support your position, and to focus on what the article should say rather than attacking the motives of other editors.. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggested change to 2020 United States presidential election

You changed "yes" to "no" without addressing the suggested change I wanted to do in the first paragraph in the article on 2020 United States presidential election. I did not suggest any change to the part of the sentence which already states the information you found wasn't noteworthy. I wanted to add information about how Trump did in the election. Please read again. Skoyt (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I answered at the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)