User talk:S Marshall/Archive41

Talk:2021 Cuban protests

I am sorry about this. As I stated, I opened it because I thought it would be helpful in choosing the actual wording, since I believe both RfCs have the flaw of not incentivizing anything other than 'yes' or 'no' but you are right. I hope they can be helpful when the RfCs close to discuss the wording to use. Davide King (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize to me! The nature of RFCs is that they only happen when there's a dispute that editors can't resolve through the normal talk page process, so they ask the community to help them decide. Once the question has been asked, it's best to pause and listen to the community's answer. If you introduce new compromise ideas part way through, then editors who've already !voted in the RfC probably won't come back to consider the new idea, so the closer is left with a discussion that's been radically altered part way through. That's quite difficult to close, particularly in this case where there are two separate RFCs running at the same time.
RFCs use up a lot of volunteer time, and volunteer time is Wikipedia's only limiting resource, so RFC is an "expensive" process, if you follow the metaphor. Keeping them shorter and simpler definitely helps to keep the cost down.—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MR close

You're correct that WP:INVOLVED is policy, but you fail to note that the people !voting for overturn because the closer was "involved" were not referencing WP:INVOLVED, but instead referencing WP:RMCI - which is not a policy. When countered that the WP:INVOLVED policy does not actually prohibit someone from closing a similar discussion simply because they had expressed an opinion previously, no rebuttal was forthcoming from anyone. Not to mention that the policy only prohibits closing a discussion one has !voted in - not closing a different discussion because one !voted in a prior one. I also don't think "overturn to no consensus to move" is a valid outcome - at most, the argument that the closer was involved should've resulted in the RM being reopened and allowed to be closed by someone else - not a complete overturn and virtual "re-close" of the discussion based on the RM. Finally, while you were correct that policy should be "normally follow[ed]", there were quite a few invocations of IAR - and those invoking NOTBURO were clearly saying they believed IAR should be invoked, even if they didn't explicitly state so.

I think at a minimum it would be beneficial if you expanded your close of the move review to discuss why you felt that the argument for "involvement" was stronger when the people arguing for involved were referencing a non-policy and could not explain why their opinions are based on the actual policy. Further, if you are unwilling to revisit the close at all, or if you remain overturning the close, you should reopen the MR to be closed by someone else as opposed to forcing a brand new discussion - if the only thing causing it to be overturned is "closer involved", the close should be vacated but the decision itself is not necessarily reversed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to my talk page! I don't agree with your view of what the overturn side were saying and I don't know quite how you reached it .That close was quite long enough and quite clear enough, and I don't intend to revise it. I don't think reopening the MR is a very good idea. My understanding is that when a move review results in an overturn, the outcome is reversed, and that's what I did (or tried to; others helped me when I screwed it up).
Contested move review closes may be reviewed on WP:AN if you'd like to appeal. Hope this helps and all the best—S Marshall T/C
- It's not always an "overturn to the other option". For "overturn to not moved", there must be a consensus in the MR that the actual close was incorrect - not simply that there was a procedural issue. A procedural issue (ex: invalid closer due to involvement, !voting in the discussion, etc) results in a reopening of the discussion. Not to mention that I'm not sure what's unclear with my view and how I reached it - I pointed out that you ignored a glaringly blatant error in that you accepted a non-policy based rationale as a "policy" - when the people !voting did not cite WP:INVOLVED but instead cited WP:RMCI - which is not a policy and which is not in line with the actual policy. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope. I took WP:INVOLVED as policy and applied it rigourously. I read the intentions and thoughts people expressed, not the precise piece of alphabet soup they linked to. If you think I'm mistaken then you're welcome to raise a review on the administrator's noticeboard, but I do not intend to change my close on the basis of this argument, which I view as a quibble.—S Marshall T/C 01:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But all that you're saying is that the closer was not in the position to close it. You're not saying that the closer was wrong in their reading of the consensus. Someone uninvolved could have come to the same conclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know, and I'm sorry if you're disappointed about that. I note that ProcrastinatingReader has reclosed it; does that satisfy you?—S Marshall T/C 07:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angola, Delaware

I disagree re: SK#1. Can you quote to me from the nomination statement anywhere the nominator actually says "this should be deleted". I'm in fact seeing anything but that. Jclemens (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel that an AfD nom must explicitly say "this should be deleted", on pain of having their nomination summarily closed? In that AfD, I understand Mangoe's nomination to mean: "I doubt that this is a village and I suspect it might in fact be a gated community". Unstated, but I think trivially implied from the fact that Mangoe started an AfD rather than a talk page discussion, is the further clause "... and if it's a gated community then it doesn't satisfy the notability criteria set out in WP:NGEO so it should be deleted". The users participating in the AfD certainly seem to have understood Mangoe's nomination in that light.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I don't see how expecting the phrase "this ought to be deleted" or its equivalent is anything but legalistic and bureaucratic. I assume, as I think anyone would, that an AfD implicitly includes the suggestion that the article should be considered for deletion.

In the case of this particular article, my experience is that talk page discussions are only worthwhile in cases where it can be assumed that a fair number of people are watching the article, which doesn't seem to be the case for these placename articles. There's a good number of people watch for geography AfDs, and I didn't see the point in having a likely inconclusive talk page discussion and then have to do it again for real at AfD. The way things have gone, people did manage to find a lot of good material, and I'm ready to say, "OK, keep it." If someone would like to do the honors and give it a proper close then, be my guest. Mangoe (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe, we're mostly talking pointless process wonkery here. No one is suggesting you did anything wrong, and if this seemed to apply that, my apologies. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs to rise to that level, but I fail to see anything about the nomination statement at all that unequivocally suggests that deletion is an appropriate outcome. By all means--please show me what I'm missing. What I see is, to paraphrase, a belief that this may not be a real unified area, or otherwise may not be accurately represented by one article. That's an excellent place to start a talk page discussion, but I'm seeing a good faith request for clarity, not an assertion that it should be deleted. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the function of SK ground 1 is to allow nominators to withdraw their XFDs. A speedy close of a nomination that hasn't been withdrawn seems very bitey to me -- it suggests that the nomination is totally inappropriate and not worth considering.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

redirects

[1]

thanks, that was nice of you : )

I will admit that when I initially read the close and it seemed to suggest that I didn't understand categories I kinda chuckled : )

and I prolly should have responded to his last question to me, to help clarify what he appeared to be misunderstanding about adminitrative cats, but I didn't see his q. But whatever, If this ends up being an issue, we can always address it then.

Anyway, thanks again. I always appreciate someone giving me my smile of the day here : ) - jc37 17:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Sincere apologies for misphrasing the first version of my close!—S Marshall T/C 17:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ongoing

Just a heads up - jc37 21:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the RM about "2021 United States Capitol attack"

Hi, I'm not asking you to revert your decision and I'm not going to start a move review, but I think you should have let the discussion run for a bit longer than the bare minimum of seven days (you closed it seven days and three hours after it was started). Berchanhimez suggested "...perhaps should be allowed to run until further comments have trickled down to a minimal amount", and MelanieN added "let's wait until discussion dies down". The discussion was still quite active; the last comment was added an hour before you closed it. I didn't have much time last week, but I would have liked to add some detailed points about our five WP:CRITERIA and how to apply them to the proposed titles in this case.

Anyway: I can live with your decision, but I'd just like to suggest: Next time you close a RM for such a contentious title, consider giving it more time than absolutely required, especially if some editors requested that. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to my talk page! Thanks for posting here.
The reasons why I disagree with Berchanhimez, MelanieN, and yourself on that point are:- firstly, because this discussion came directly after a move review which lasted from 1st June to 1st August, in which editors extensively discussed the process and the alternatives; secondly, because in my view the community had offered so much input that the consensus was absolutely crystal clear; and thirdly, this being the fourteenth (14th) move request for this content, the community was expressing some very understandable impatience with the constant bikeshedding about retitling. I do feel it's important that we follow the process scrupulously, but having done so, it's right to make a decision and move on.—S Marshall T/C 15:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your motives; that is helpful. And thanks for introducing me to a new word, "bikeshedding". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First admin to see the close basically has an official duty to effectuate the technical side of things. One thousand dissenting voices could flock onto the talk page post-close discussion and say "don't move because XYZ" and the page would still 100% have to be moved. It's RM close (followed by the required technical action by whomever, automatically, doesn't matter who) -> MR or lack thereof. Not RM close (of a formal process) -> informal discussion -> ???. Formal process has a formal outcome. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you closed the move review, I don't think you're anywhere near as uninvolved as many of us would've liked. Yes, that's an administrative role action so not technically involved. But you closed the move review ignoring those of us who were saying that the RMCI is not in line with the actual involved policy - and then proceeded to ignore those of us who requested someone completely uninvolved close this. While I greatly appreciate your being willing to continue to assist with determining consensus from an outside view, I do not believe your close is in line with my views, and I think that your closure at this time is likely more detrimental to the page as a whole than had you simply left it for someone else to close. Furthermore, the consensus here may have been more clear than the consensus in the other move discussion, but your participation in the area means that there is yet another potential avenue to argue that this was improper. I made my request knowing that it was well above and beyond what is normally expected, and to be quite frank, I feel like you simply ignored me and another admin MelanieN in closing this right now. Quite frankly, I'm dumbfounded that you felt it needed closing sooner rather than later, when the past move request lingered for weeks and the move review for over a month. If "it's right to make a decision and move on", then you should've closed the move review as "endorse, even given the "involvement" of the closer". Your participation in the past move request, move review, and this move request has only opened more doors for people to claim impropriety and be unhappy with the results, and overall I am less than impressed with your comments on this matter. I greatly respect your work virtually everywhere else - but you really should consider undoing your close and allowing it to go further as multiple people have opined that would be beneficial regardless of the crystal clear consensus (which, I'll note, was also present in the last move request which you overturned at move review). I'm not sure "hypocritical" is the right word - but there's definitely a disconnect between your closure of the move review and your decision to ignore people calling for this to go longer, as well as ignoring my request for a more thought out statement than just "there's a consensus". I urge you to please undo your close and allow it to be closed by someone completely uninvolved 100% never edited this page or any move request on it before administrator. Hundreds of admins exist who fit that criteria, and there's no rush. Also, on a lighter note, just because your edit notice says swearing is allowed, fuck drama - I don't intend for this to cause drama, and I certainly won't comment further past this (unless you ask questions of me or something like that), but I worry that your "on time" close is going to result in more eventual drama than had you left it and allowed another person to close it later on. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, I was and am fully uninvolved, that close was fully in accordance with the procedure, and was supported by a strong consensus. I anticipate that you or User:Awesome Aasim will raise a move review and I would welcome that. At the MR I expect the community to tell you my position is akin to Gibraltar.—S Marshall T/C 09:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While there might technically be "hundreds of admins", I don't think there is a line of volunteers wanting to dive into a conflict like this. It reminds me of Gamergate days when we were lucky to have one or two admins willing to referee the drama and they quickly burned out over the constant feuding. I only wish the pause on move discussions had been made longer but I understand S Marshall's decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hertfordshire Mercury

Hi, I came across you via the Hertfordshire wikiproject which seems dormant at the moment. I've recently started editing again after a bit of a break and am in the middle of trying to improve the McMullen's Brewery article. I'm struggling a bit for decent sources and I was wondering if you knew how to get hold of old articles from the Hertfordshire Mercury? It was Hertford's main paper for most of the 20th century and should have lots of articles. If not do you know where the best place to ask would be? Thanks RicDod (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, if you're local to Hertford the best way is to pop to the HALS offices next to County Hall. The Herts Mercury back issues probably haven't been digitised. All the best—S Marshall T/C 19:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try and head down there at some point. RicDod (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaurya Doval

Nice to meet you. In case your pings still aren't working, I pinged you at Draft talk:Shaurya Doval. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!—S Marshall T/C 16:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your post

Would appreciate if you amend your post on the admin board to list also WP:SUBTOPICCAT and WP:LISTRCAT as currently it seems as if it's a no consensus vs guideline situation, when in fact it's a guideline vs guideline issue. Additionally, as I've pointed out, no one has shown why the categories are admin or cleanup which then brings into question whether the other guideline is even relevant. Currently your post makes it seem very one-sided. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be deleted?

I noticed your comments in Deletion_review#Active_discussions. I don't have enough experience in biography articles to know if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Beat should be deleted, or not. Could you do a quick look at it? Thanks. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sbmeirow. I think your instincts there were right. I've moved it to draft space for incubation.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits on Gateway section of Electronic Cigarettes

I'm liking your edits; cleaner and simpler.

I would like to restore just one "A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis of 25 studies and three reviews found that every study examined found that e-cigarette use was associated with higher odds of later smoking." Why? It informs on the strength of the evidence. But tighten it up. E.g. "A review of 25 studies found every study measured a gateway effect". What do you say? Cloudjpk (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I say thanks for the kind compliment!
I think that we're writing for two audiences. Firstly for those readers who know what a systematic review is and understand the scientific weight that a meta-analysis provides, many of whom have a college or university education, and secondly for a general audience. Half of our readers are of below average attainment in science.
I think that the first kind of reader will tend to check our sources every time we make a claim they find surprising, and the footnotes do make clear how strong the evidence is. So I think the prose content of a non-technical article such as this one should generally be aimed at the second kind of reader. Could we perhaps say something like "There is good evidence for a gateway effect"?—S Marshall T/C 21:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- You are indeed welcome, and I thank you for your improvements to the article, and thought and care. And I'm fine with "There is good evidence for a gateway effect", cite Baenziger2021, and leave it at that. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump close

Thanks for closing the Donald Trump page thread on North Korea. I think it would be helpful if you would quote the approved wording in your close, so that when future users consult the archive they will not need to go back to the article to verify the consensus text. SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but am currently away from my computer, trying to edit from a tablet, and also, about to go out, so I need your help to do it. I am content for you to append this clarification to my close.—S Marshall T/C 14:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Open ended closing

I've fixed the ending of the RFC closure, for you :) GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your valued work in the July 2021 GAN Backlog Drive, which, in a single month, helped to reduce the backlog by nearly 50%. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One editor very interested in Cold War II

Hey there. Thanks for the close. As I must say, I started the RFC mostly because one editor kept passionately pushing for whatever the one oneself wants and I wasn't brave enough to angrily convince the editor to give up the idea. What can I do if that editor tries to reinsert what is already rejected? --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC); typo, 17:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At first, assume they're in good faith and point them to the pre-existing consensus; and if they persist despite consensus, ask one of our excellent and admirable sysops to give them support and direction! All the best—S Marshall T/C 16:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AN on RFC close

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Challenge_of_RSN_closure_of_RFC_on_Daily_Wire nableezy - 15:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did not get you

Hi there, English is not my native language please excuse my ignorance. "On the rest of what you wrote, I dispute and join issue with you in every respect." what do you mean. Perhaps you can repharse it here for me.

Are you disagreeing with me on everything else.

or

you agree with me on some and disagree on others? Venkat TL (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a polite way of saying that I don't agree with anything you said.—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a minute...

...would you take a look at my closure at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RFC: Regnal names? It struck me as a fairly clear outcome, but since this is (I think) my first projectspace RfC closure, I figured it was worth getting a second opinion. I've always appreciated your thoughtful closures, so I'd appreciate any feedback you might have. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid job. By explaining the close so thoroughly you help editors to see how and why the decision is made. Your close is accurate and in accordance with all the applicable guidelines.—S Marshall T/C 10:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help please - if you have a minute...

Hello Mr Marshall it's been a while. I'd welcome you thoughts and intervention if possible. A new user has been creating a company page. An editor arbitrarily decided to delete it. No consensus. No discussion. No reference to any other similar pages. No comprehension or acknowledgement of the value of this to the field of study. I posted a polite caution on their talk page. They've proceeded to gather a cabal to harass me. It things like this that drive many editors away and create a very toxic environment. Can you assist please? Amicaveritas (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amicaveritas, could you provide the links and diffs so I can see what happened?—S Marshall T/C 18:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr Marshall, thank you for getting back to me. This was the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SciChart it's been deleted so I don't know if you can see diffs. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To save you time:

The article was deleted because it met the speedy deletion criteria (nominated by Giraffer)
Here's the "polite caution".
See User talk:Amicaveritas for further info. Deb (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's unfortunate. Mildness and kindness is usually the successful approach on Wikipedia (and it's almost always the right approach too). My view is that contested G13s don't often survive DRV -- they very often get overturned and referred to MFD. It might be quickest and simplest to restore and MFD the draft now and allow the community to have its say, even if it seems like a foregone conclusion. Deb, would you be willing to consider this?—S Marshall T/C 12:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a reason to do that. The article creator was almost certainly the owner of the company. It was a G11, not a G13, and Amicaveritas himself/herself had previously made this edit, with the summary "Edited to remove potential puffery". Deb (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you can't see that, it amounts to changing "SciChart is a High Performance software library for charting." to "SciChart is a software library for high performance charting."; removing "Novel" from "First released in 2012, SciChart produced WPF Charts using a novel Bitmap rendering technique to achieve high performance, real-time graphing on the Windows Presentation Foundation platform."; and "highly popular" from "In a highly popular interview with Mixergy's Andrew Warner, Andrew Burnett-Thompson described how early versions of the SciChart chart software were written on the train commute to London, outside of a 9-5 job, while overcoming adversity such as family sickness in his personal life.<ref>[a podcast]</ref>" just after two refs to the founder's linkedin page. —Cryptic 13:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Amicaveritas, with Deb's refusal your options are: (1) Go to deletion review and ask the community to review Deb's decision; (2) Read WP:G11 carefully, note that you are allowed to generate a new draft with that title but there will be an exact repeat of this incident if it's promotional, and therefore carefully ensure that it's scrupulously neutral; or (3) Decide you can't be bothered and move on. In my view this source and this source show that it's reasonable for Wikipedia to host a draft about this company, but I would not recommend that you try to move it to mainspace without at least one further independent, reliable source and I haven't been able to find a further source that would suffice.—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks you for your help, it's much appreciated. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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.

Please note, due to a technical error you may not have been able to previously vote, or you may have received this message twice or after opting out. This is a one-time notification. If you are having any issues voting now, please contact the election coordinators for assistance. Thank you!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M-M Duruflé

In case you don't watch: I removed the fanpov tag from Marie-Madeleine Duruflé, - the fan being quoted being the obit writer from the New York Times. I wanted to mention her in a DYK and was told "not with these tags". I wish I had researched then. - Today is the birthday of a friend who met her in person, asking for permission to perform a work by her husband in a German translation, which she granted. That made me look closer. A great woman. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up that article!—S Marshall T/C 12:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DRV Shooting of Ashli Babbitt

Hello friend. Thanks for your close. Would you be willing to edit in something about the article should be kept and not redirected for now, just to make it super clear? Already getting folks restoring the redirect on the article. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "split" creating the content fork should have been reverted on sight, not sent to AFD. Now that the process is complete, BRD takes over. Feoffer (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think S Marshall's suggestion of starting an Rfc for anyone who is unsatisfied with the results of the Afd and DRV was a good one. Much better than a perpetual edit war. StonyBrook (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think that was a wonderfully nuanced and appropriate close for the DRV. Jclemens (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good close of that discussion. And explaining it all so clearly helps a lot. Hobit (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great close Stuart, well done. Daniel (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]