User talk:Rockycape

Down-ball at DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Down-ball. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Just the messenger here Star Mississippi 03:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I know. Thanks--from an admin NOT in good standing. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging reverted re-directs

It's my understanding that if I boldly re-direct something and the re-direct is challenged, AfD is a reasonable next step. Am I doing this right? Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America) Graywalls (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before elevating to AfD, I would have suggested starting a discussion on the talk page, Talk:Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America). --evrik ^(talk) 03:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- User:evrik, sure, but there's nothing wrong with the course of action Graywalls took. Community discussion etc. is great, but "Restoring deleted content" is totally not helpful. What you could have done is add the necessary secondary sourcing that proves notability before hitting revert--but the thing is, there likely is no secondary sourcing that proves notability for this by our standards, because it's such a programmatic, "internal" topic, appropriate for the organization's website but not for an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Going to the talk page would have shown good faith. --evrik ^(talk) 15:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - That works both ways. BTW should I declare my COI here, Graywalls? Both my daughters went through this and subsequent trainings. ;) Drmies (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En-mass AfD nominations are often harmful to the wikipedia community

En-mass AfD nominations are often harmful to the wikipedia and there are casualties when page creators and contributors leave the wikipedia community for good.

comment. I can't let Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barauni–Lucknow_Express pass without making a comment. This article is only one of so many articles that a fellow editor has listed en-mass that will likely be deleted. So little effort required to have so much effort deleted and then it's gone from wikipedia. As a wikipedia reader I've looked up trains in India when I've "armchair travelled" after seeing the movie Lion_(2016_film) and this kind of information in wikipedia makes my wikipedia experience better. Finally, I'd like to say thank you to the page creators and contributors. Speaking for myself, your efforts are appreciated. Rockycape (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Squares and ball games has been nominated for merging

Category:Squares and ball games has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gjs238 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article I created was highjacked, so I recreated the article and it got deleted.

This discussion started on page User talk:Mdann52 and I copied it here removing Mdann52 as a courtesy. (They had not asked to be removed but did not appear to be interested in the discussion)

An article I created in 2018 downball was hijacked, so I recreated the article last month as down-ball and it got deleted. I handled the AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Down-ball and Deletion Review Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_July_5#Down-ball like a newb which resulted in my article staying deleted and moved back to the draft space. Draft:Downball_(wall_and_ball_game) It was not a good experience and left me quite flat for a short time.

I've been taking part in a number of AfDs recently and am interested in looking into how others who nom AfDs vote and whether they have created many articles. You appear to be one of those who nom AfDs but have been quite prolific in creating articles too.

I'd like to ask for your input. Now it seems to me that the best thing to do is to undo the downball hijack. Any advice appreciated? thanks, Rockycape (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockycape you've been told that AfC is the way forward. Please don't reach out to individual editors to go around that. It's not productive use of anyone's time. cc @Drmies @Alalch E. Star Mississippi 17:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Star Mississippi,

I don't want myself or others to burn out so I take your comments about staying productive with everyones time at face value. As a courtesy and show of good faith I don't intend to continue this discussion on page User talk:Mdann52. Rockycape (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Star Mississippi, There are two separate things we are discussing.

AfC(Down-ball) - I accept that there was a consensus in the AfD/Deletion review and I am progressing AfC.
hijacking of Downball - which has not been discussed on the Downball talk page, and was not discussed in the Down-ball AfD/Deletion review.

Consequently I intend to discuss this on the Downball talk page. I assume this would be the right place on wikipedia to discuss the hijacking. Please let me know if you think otherwise. I will continue in good faith and with a professional approach. Also on the WP community side I plan to attend a meetup in real life happening soon in the city where I live.Rockycape (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You are welcome to start the discussion and see whether the community agrees there has been a hijacking.If they don't, I highly recommend you move on before you get frustrated. Star Mississippi 02:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Star Mississippi, by way of explanation, this Downball is the Downball page before it was blanked out and rewritten as Downball in 2018 with the topic changing to a completely different game. Most recently I came back to wikipedia and was surprised to find the page did not resemble the page I created and that no one challenged the rewrite which suffers from major problems with being a promotional piece for a business.

I rewrote the page as Down-ball to remedy this but off course that went to AfD and Deletion review as you know. Rockycape (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De'Anyers family

Hi @AirshipJungleman29:, do you think there are possibly untoward things at play with the article? I always like to take a moment to consider an article that appears to have had a lot of work creating it but some simple mistakes don't seem to make sense. Specifically By 1920, remaining assets from the banking firm were sold mentions "banking firm" when it was a "shipping firm".

As you are the nominator I'd like to ask if you have any other concerns than those mentioned in your nomination? Rockycape (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Squares

A tag has been placed on Category:Squares indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rockycape,

Please do not create a category just for one article or category. It is likely to be emptied or nominated for deletion at WP:CFD. Categories are more likely to be retained when they are an integral part of an existing category tree, not an isolated category. If you want to work with categories, I encourage you to look over some category discussions at CFD to see how deletion and merger decisions are made. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, although it was unintentional consequence of creating Category:Squares_and_ball_games that I created Category:Squares, this category was not created for one article. I'd not added articles to the category when the speedy deletion tag was added. Subsequently I've removed the speedy deletion tag and added several articles to the category. There are a number of others that would appear to fit this category well. I expect this will go to Categories for discussion and on that basis in good faith I intend to take this forward. I have been reading about Categories and also category discussions at CFD. I'm encouraged that there are editors for whom English is a second language who are able to navigate policy and procedure on en.wikipedia.org as it does show that there is still a place for humans here. regards, Rockycape (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand categories, how they are used and what they are for. Every category is part of the category hiearchy on Wikipedia and has parent categories that connect it to other categories. Yours has none. It's hard to understand what a category with this title is even supposed to be for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, The category description is "Games involving a squares grid on the ground." You can also see the articles that I have added to the category. As I see it Category:Squares would belong to the parent Category:Games which I am still to work out how to do. These are not inexplicable concepts to get my head around. Nonetheless I do your appreciate your calm and patient approaches. regards, Rockycape (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Squares and ball games

Propose merging Category:Squares and ball games to Category:Ball games

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary/overcategorization Gjs238 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Three pages are in this category. This category improves WP readers finding things and is helpful. ~~Perhaps some changes in the category name such as "Squares court and ball games" would be better.~~ Happy to progress with the existing name. Rockycape (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockycape please provide evidence for the existence of a more generic name like "Squares court and ball games". If a more generic name does not exist then merge the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockycape for the existing name it isn't any different. Please provide evidence for the existence of a more generic name like "Squares and ball games". If a more generic name does not exist then merge the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. It feels unnecessary to have a completely separate category for ball games that involve squares, when "Squares" could simply be added as a subcategory of "Ball games".

Nn88nn88 (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ball games --> Category:Squares and ball games --> Category: Squares

"Squares" from Category: Squares the generic name commonly used. As follows from Wiktionary definition: A sport played by four players where players have to hit a ball into other people's squares, and attempt to make a return hit. This category includes Hopscotch, Foursquare, Handball (schoolyard game) and Russian four square.Rockycape (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockycape I am sorry but Wiktionary is not a reliable source. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Marcocapelle Happy to use a online OED reference. Sorry it's behind a paywall. Hmmm - need to give some more thought.
Rockycape (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - Considering the difficulty you have mentioning only one reliable source it is very unlikely that any term is commonly used to describe these three games as a coherent set. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be ok as it is commonly used and it's 2/2 with the paywall being the problem for the AED. Off to the bricks and mortar library for me and to take a squiz at the dictionary there. Rockycape (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Macquarie Australian slang dictionary
    
    Author: general editor James Lambert.
    
    Imprint: Macquarie University, NSW : Macquarie Library, 2004.
    
    ISBN: 1876429526
    
    handball - a common schoolyard game played with a tennis ball which is hit with the hands in a court, consisting usually of either four or six squares, drawn on the asphalt. Four square - The version with four squares also gets called four square

It looks like the Macquarie University reference is of a high standard in addition to backing up the Oxford Dictionary reference(paywall) and the lesser Wiktionary one.Rockycape (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a definition of handball, played with a tennis ball. Sounds like a ball game. Gjs238 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A

B

C

Rockycape (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the diagram above we would have (A) wall, (B) ball_games, (C) squares.

The categories are:

Category:Ball games

Category:Squares and ball games - you can't play these games without the requisite Squares - just like Squares are essential for Hopscotch. (No ball required for Hopscotch but you get the idea)

Category:Wall and ball games - you can't play these games without the requisite Wall - just like the Wall is essential for squash. (No racquet required here but you get the idea)

Category:Wall and ball games exists already

Category:Squares and ball games is the one we are discussing.

I did the diagram for my benefit to hopefully be able to explain my rationale.

We already many, many games in the Ball games category so collapsing either of the above categories is going to be a step backwards in clarity. Rockycape (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried to follow the above discussion, but Rockycape's arguments are not making any sense to me. How do dictionary definitions for foursquare and handball have anything to do with whether this purported grouping is actually recognised as a distinct class of games? --Paul_012 (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, upon rereading their explanation below the diagram (which is mislabelled by the way), I think I understand. Rockycape created this category (Squares and ball games) as an analogue to the existing Category:Wall and ball games. The difference is that "wall-and-ball games" (that category should be renamed for hyphenation by the way) is an established term that has been used by reliable sources, while "squares and ball games" was just made up based on their own original analysis, and the dicdefs were invoked support to support this analysis. Rockycape, please see the Wikipedia policy on WP:No original research. We can't accept such self-created descriptions and categorisations. Merge/delete per nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the articles, Four square, Handball (schoolyard game) and Downball all seem to be saying that they're synonyms or variations of the same game. Can't tell if Russian four square is even similar or just a shared name. It seems that what really needs to be done here is merging the redundant articles. Then there'd be no issue stemming from the desire to categorise them together. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, there is no evidence that it is a commonly used term by reliable sources. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.. I'd like to highlight the nomination reason

nominated for unnecessary/overcategorization
nominator proposes MERGE to Category:Ball_games
Category:Ball_games is already too BIG to be useful (200 articles)
Category:Ball_games has a manageable (20 sub-categories)

Being aware of efficiency here can re-list this or we take the discussion to the Category Talk page for a more thorough discussion perhaps . . .

. . . I propose if further discussion does not result in consensus I am happy to concede.

With respect to moving the discussion can I ask the nominator to withdraw this nomination on the basis of this being necessary and useful categorization. Rockycape (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of more thorough discussion do you envisage? When you have e.g. five reliable sources that consider these games a distinct group you can list them here (not that I expect any), and other than that I don't think there is anything left to discuss. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If afforded the extra time, I'd like to focus further discussion on:

(a) Category:Squares and ball games is not overcategorization

(b) This discussion should be more about defining characteristic

(c) This discussion should be different to the notability requirement for articles. Rockycape (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ball games; that and other existing categories like Category:Wall-and-ball games are sufficient. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

urgency in getting AfDs done results in less rigorous discussion

background

Wikipedia has a regular core group of people getting involved regularly in AfD right now. This group changes over time and no doubt people burn out and leave. They know the process well and have varying levels of experience (all more experienced than this little brown duck however)
Functionally there is an urgency in getting AfDs done that results in less rigorous discussion.

For a non-controversial topic, perhaps it would be better if there was some way to settle things down and let the consensus form in a less rushed and less urgent way. Let's extend the timeframe on non controversial AfD and take the heat out down a notch or two. Rockycape (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice from another's User Talk page

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused.
Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.
If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.
Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (WP:NOT)Rockycape (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Squares has been nominated for deletion

Category:Squares has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Squares

Propose deleting Category:Squares (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category contains "games involving squares on the ground", either part-of or all-of the playing area. It does not seem to be a simple or common way to categorize of games. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gjs238 (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did someone say TNT?Rockycape (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there exceptions to "remove anything in the draft not directly supported by a source"?

Hi @Bsoyka:, I read with interest your comments "I recommend you go through and remove anything in the draft not directly supported by a source—there seem to be a few paragraphs sprinkled throughout with no citations" and I have questions.

I see your comments are about a Biography of a living person which I agree needs to be well sourced and referenced.

For example. Let's start with an article subject that is notable and not a Biography of a living person. Information is summarised from secondary sources into the article. The contributor adds some additional non-contentious information that improves the article and is unlikely to be challenged.

Can't this information remain in the article without a source or citation as long as the editor considers it unlikely to be challenged?/Are there exceptions to "remove anything in the draft not directly supported by a source"?Rockycape (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In such a case, I'd wonder where the editor found the information. In my experience, I've found that most information added to articles generally falls under one of four categories:

The editor found the info from a reliable source, but maybe didn't/forgot to cite it.
The editor found the info from an unreliable source, and it might need to be removed.
The editor is connected to the article's subject and knew the information without published sources.
The editor is a vandal, making up completely false information.

If the added text seems reasonable, I'd tag it with {{Citation needed}} and likely reach out to ask where they found the information, and go from there. If it doesn't seem reasonable or could be controversial, I'd consider removing it, especially in biographies of living persons, possibly also sending a warning message to the editor.

In any case though, one of the core principles of Wikipedia is its verifiability. Per our policy, All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Not everything technically requires an inline citation, but everything still needs to be verifiable in published sources. Nothing in an article should be without a source in one way or another, because that's the entire premise of an encyclopedia. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 23:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we look at a specific example from the more general topic "games" which is an area I want to contribute to. One of the sentences at the beginning of the Hopscotch article is "It is a children's game that can be played with several players or alone."

Perhaps this does not require a reference or source and falls under "common knowlege" and is unlikely to be challenged? Rockycape (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is coming to the Hopscotch article to learn about hopscotch, I'd argue that the core principles of hopscotch shouldn't be considered common knowledge for them. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, but something that seems obvious to you might not be to our average reader. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think should be done with Hopscotch? (edit to delete "It is a children's game . . ."?)Rockycape (t • c • g) 00:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, in that case I'd find a source that proves that fact and reference it myself, like this. No reason to delete decent content that needs work when you can just do said work in a matter of minutes. It's also noting that article doesn't seem to follow our convention that the lead (first section before any headers) should summarize content that's explained and cited below without introducing new ideas or citations. It could use some work in that aspect. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 00:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like your approach in clearly explaining and then illustrating the point and demonstrating in action. Super helpful and thank you Rockycape (t • c •g) 01:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help—you know where to find me if you need anything else! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 01:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Requests for comment" on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Article_alerts for Downball

Hi @Wakelamp: - I'm contemplating a "Requests for comment" on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Article_alerts for Downball. I haven't worked out how to do this and would appreciate some help?Rockycape (t • c •g) 02:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

@Bsoyka: I'd received some help on this question posted at Teahouse already but I haven't been able to find out when I should go down the path of Request for comment. Could I ask for your assistance perhaps? This was my question at the Teahouse.

I'd like to create a Request for comment for an article. The article is part of a Wikiproject. Could I ask for some assistance about how and when I should do this please?

The reason I was thinking of Request for comment was because I was hoping to tap into the WikiProject Australia community and thought this might be a good way of doing that.

regards Rockycape (t • c •g) 11:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be some decent responses at the Teahouse. And, per that thread, you want to consolidate and centralize discussions whenever possible, instead of running parallel discussions in multiple places. You've asked there and started two threads on your own talk page (which, by the way, when starting a conversation with someone you should generally go to their talk page). No need for three different conversations about the same topic. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 13:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment (Teahouse question)

hi Teahouse hosts, I'd like to create a Request for comment for an article. The article is part of a Wikiproject. Could I ask for some assistance about how and when I should do this please? Rockycape (t • c •g) 04:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the comment you made yesterday at Talk:Downball? As a note to the Teahouse hosts, the COI editor in question last edited more than half a year ago—Special:Contribs/Nmck2024dba shows nothing after 29 January.

I'm going to make some bold changes to the article. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teahouse hosts, yes - appreciate it and thanks. Rockycape (t • c •g) 11:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're hoping to tap into the WikiProject Australia community (diff), the best way is to just go to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and ask them to participate in the existing discussion at Talk:Downball. That's because you want to consolidate and centralize discussions whenever possible, instead of running parallel discussions in multiple places. For example, if you've already asked for help here, you may want to avoid asking the same question on your user talkpage. (; Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teahouse hosts, apologies as I'm missing something in understanding how to "just go to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and ask them to participate in the existing discussion". I'm not sure if I just leave a message like I know how to do on a talk page or whether I need to add a template to the article or something else? Can I ask for more specific instructions and information on when it's appropriate to do so please? Rockycape (t • c •g) 12:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, make sure you're not WP:CANVASSing – in this case, you should be fine.

You can just leave a message at the noticeboard ("Your project might be interested in this discussion..." or you can use the {{please see}} template. Cremastra (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help.Rockycape (t • c •g) 13:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place a message at the talk page or noticeboard or other

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.
A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider influence such as policy or guideline discussions.
The talk page of one or more directly related articles.
On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior).
On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
- Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
- Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
- Editors known for expertise in the field
- Editors who have asked to be kept informed

The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send inappropriate notices, as defined in the section directly below, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.

Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. The {{Please see}} template may help in notifying people in a quick, simple, and neutral manner.

Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users. Rockycape (t • c •g) 23:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]