User talk:Anachronist

Archives

2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

"While the image is good, the text cites a forum, which isn't acceptable" - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcoholic_beverage&diff=prev&oldid=1223699022

But you didn't keep the image. Please improve your working methods. Can you please restore it? --94.255.152.53 (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either image is fine with me, so whether the new one or the old one is there makes no difference. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining this. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anachronist. Since you unblocked the account Justinstebbing after getting verification of his identity as the subject of the article Justin Stebbing, he has continued to directly edit article multiple times (first, second, third), despite your own notice and subsequent notices/warnings from other users (myself included). He's made no attempt to engage other editors or make proper edit requests on the talk page. I wonder if another block (or threat thereof) is in order. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking would be counterproductive because it would prevent the subject of the article from suggesting improvements. So... while I normally don't ever protect an article based on disruptive actions of one editor, in this case I have, to steer the editor to the talk page. Once the COI editor starts making requests on the talk page, then I can remove the protection. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Barry De Vorzon § Fixing the spelling of his name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anachronist. Would you mind taking a look at this when you have a spare moment or two? It appears related to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1225#Barry Devorzon. It looks like the subject of the article is responding to a question about the spelling of their name asked more than eight years ago. If things are as the subject is claiming, the page might need to be moved; however, Google shows the subject's name to be spelled in multiple ways, and it's unclear which one is correct per WP:COMMONNAME. Perhaps VRT verifying the account is really the subject would be one way to clear this up? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the subject has also just asked WP:HD#Barry Devorzon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

I removed the topic in the Casualties of the Israel Hamas war article because there is already Talk:Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war#Two_proposed_changes_--_header_and_death_toll_section about that by them on that talk which I had left and I had already warned them about WP:ARBECR. NadVolum (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Your edit summary implied that the editor wasn't permitted to contribute to the talk page, and the ARBECR message does not specify that talk pages are included in the restrictions. That is why I restored the request. The talk page is fine if it remains unprotected and the contribution isn't disruptive. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I would hope and expect that an admin with your level of experience would know that not every sock block requires an SPI beforehand, but since you asked it is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14 novembre. This person is not subtle and is not actually trying to edit Wikipedia, they are trolling. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, for some reason I didn't find it, probably because I misspelled it. In any case, I would have simply declined the unblock request rather than nowiki it out. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I look at it the same as deleting pages created by socks, the request is not valid on its face and not worth anyone's time to review because the user is a disruptive block-evading troll. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phoenix219 created Draft:Pure Imagination Studios and has not disclosed that they are a paid editor? Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: The person currently involved has disclosed it. I hadn't noticed the creator is different. I suspect they're both the same, based on the WP:TEAHOUSE discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phoenix219 mentions in a comment on their talk page that they are a paid intern, I have dropped them a message about disclosure. Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two different people, we are both working on this project together. Phoenix219 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the disclosure. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably nicer than I might have been on this one.[1] I'm rather curious where one might find "local editors" for that particular article... Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's funny! The word "local" didn't register in my mind at the time. Even the "local" inhabitants in David Brin's novel Sundiver turned out to be fake. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Anachronist and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which I get flagged by Raoul mishima Kelvintjy (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Anachronist case request has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Not sure how that happened. I meant to comment only not erase. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. It happens to me too, about once every couple of months or so. Just today, in fact, I rolled back someone's 10 good edits when my finger involuntarily twitched as my mouse pointer passed over the rollback link on a diff. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input in resolving issues on page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Jordan_(artist). I hadn't logged-in for awhile, so missed your request on talk page for identifying secondary sources. Apologies about that. I have now provided examples of secondary sources on talk page, plus a new citation (secondary source) has been added to a Guardian review of the artist's film Concrete Forms of Resistance. Other citations (eg 1, 2, 3, 4, 8...) are secondary sources, independent of the subject or venue, such as reviews in professional contemporary art journals and film magazine publications etc. Hope this answers your question and addresses notability requirements. If you have time to check the page for any other issue, such as neutrality, that would be much appreciated. I feel these templates are somewhat undermining the page's content and I'm anxious for it to be improved and all Wiki guidelines met. Many thanks again for any help in resolving this. Jorbert30 (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You so much for your unconditional support towards me, and unblocking this account. I am extremely obliged to you. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 14:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just want to clear this doubt. I have only two accounts, one being unusable now. What if someone else starts copying me just to put me into troubles, and I am unaware of it. What should I do then.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 15:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a rule: Assume good faith. That is what I did in your case to get you unblocked. the scenario you describe is unlikely to happen.

We have administrators with checkuser privileges, which include a number of technical tools to determine which accounts are operated by the same person. You were open and transparent about having two accounts, so there was no need to involve a checkuser admin. If you weren't transparent about it, someone would have opened a sockpuppet investigation and a checkuser would have determined that both accounts are operated by the same person. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. So, even I can start a Sockpuppet investigation if I found them. right.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anyone can start a sockpuppet investigation. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should put semi-protection on Mahatma Gandhi page. Your full protection expired thus disruption from non-autoconfirmed accounts has resumed. Thanks. Azuredivay (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Wikipedia had a feature in which full-protection reverts back to the previous state once it expires. Thanks. Administrator Favonian already restored indef semi on it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Anachronist! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		You've been a great advisor—𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 09:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get you to reverse your decision to lower the protection level of Qing dynasty? The sockpuppeteer who made that protection necessary is is Phạm Văn Rạng, who is still very active (see SPI). Their most recent sock, BakaMH980, was blocked less than two weeks ago, and posted to the article's talk page, so it seems likely that they will continue disrupting the article if given the chance. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to wait. The request was made by user Minecraft6532, who as far as I can tell isn't a sockpuppet. I don't feel that the article should be brought back to ECP pre-emptively, I'd rather wait to restore ECP in the event disruption resumes. The article is on my watchlist. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to push further on this, but I don't see "because someone asked" as being sufficient justification for reducing the protection level, when that request was based on a factual error (the presumption that the sockpuppetry had stopped), and especially not when there's clear evidence that protection was still necessary very recently. I'm assuming you were unaware BakaMH980's posts to the talk page. I'm not asking you to preemptively protect a page out of nowhere here, I'm asking that you recognize that you made decision without being aware of all of the relevant facts, and to reverse that decision accordingly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I did not know the history of this sockmaster, I observed that the sockpuppets were blocked, the edit filter log showed nothing since protection was applied, and new sockpuppets would still be prevented from editing by semiprotection, and ECP should not be permanent in most cases ("indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite"). Those are the relevant facts. Therefore I felt it was worth trying semiprotection. I'd appreciate if you refrain from presuming to know the mind of another administrator that led to this decision to reduce protection, and instead assume good faith that the decision wasn't made in ignorance.

If you look at my history of protection, you will see that I err on the high side compared to other administrators, usually applying more protection than others would think necessary. Indef ECP did not seem necessary here. I could have applied an end date, but I figured we might as well try indef semi instead.

You have the ability to restore ECP and I won't object if you do, although I point out, again, that we don't protect pages pre-emptively. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a Thomas Sowell quote on trickle-down economics and added it to the article for context. You deleted it saying: "this article is about the term, and doesn't refer to a 'theory'. All Sowell says is that no economist ever advanced such a theory." However, the article clearly discusses the theory, not just the term. Nevertheless, I reposted a link to the Sowell quote, focusing only on his specific criticism of the term. Yet you deleted that, as well, and protected the article from further edits. None of this seems justified. RCJournal902 (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reverted by multiple editors. Make your case on the page Talk:Trickle-down economics. The word "theory" occurs only in quotations. Not only is Sowell making a straw-man argument (arguing with the Pope, who isn't an economist), but you also violated WP:LEAD by putting the passage in the wrong place, and using WP:PEACOCK terms in it. None of that is acceptable. The article was protected due to disruption from multiple IP addresses, not just yours. Please follow WP:BRD as a best practice in the future. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get what you're saying. However, your point about the Pope is unfounded; while the Pope's use of the term was the entrée to the conversation, the main thrust of Sowell's criticism (and what I quoted from) was of the term itself. As for the rest, I'll certainly take note and do better next time. RCJournal902 (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think economists recognize the concept as a political policy position and no economist has ever advanced it as a "theory". There's room for expanding on this point in the body of the article, and briefly mentioning it in the lead section. You just went about it in the wrong way. I suggest you propose such a change on the article talk page so others can review and discuss it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you changed my update since the reference from Ambrose is unsupported by fact and is, in fact, his sole opinion? Best… 96.230.248.215 (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You replaced text and removed a citation, leaving it completely uncited, while failing to explain each of your edits in an edit summary. That's why. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough: However; after. 50 years of research on this topic, I have never seen a comment, of value, that GAC was “inept” - whereas my edit can be verified as fact .

Nonetheless, I’ve ordered the Ambrose book and we’ll see where his source is from and if it has merit. I suspect this conversation is not over so do be prepared...  :) 96.230.248.215 (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion or dispute about the content. I reverted you for the reasons I explained. Rewrite it while citing a reliable source and use an edit summary, and you won't be reverted. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw you undid my edit. The estimates of the abducted vary, you can see the violence and estimate section that some authors state that more women were abducted in Pakistan and some others say more women were abducted in India. So it's wrong to say that the no. of women abducted in East Punjab was twice the number of women abducted in West Punjab. Lalitadityaaa (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the content. My edit summary explains clearly why you were reverted. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Anachronist - just following up again as a new citation (secondary source) has been added, linking to a Guardian review of the film Concrete Forms of Resistance on Nick Jordan (artist). I've also answered your question on the article's talk page, explaining that many of the other citations (eg 1, 2, 3, 4, 8...) are secondary sources, independent of the subject or venue, such as reviews in professional contemporary art journals and film magazine publications etc. I believe these are all reliable, independent sources and meet the Wikipedia: Golden Rule. Please let me know if you think this is not the case. There are also no specific, editable COI issues flagged, so please could you or an editor re-review and remove the templates, as per the guidelines. That would be much appreciated. Many thanks again for your help in improving the page. Jorbert30 (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the conversations on Brianna Wu's talk page. It discussed something she herself said very publicly. How can that be a BLP violation? 170.40.162.171 (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can you help us protect page "2024 FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup" due to vandalism reiterated by IP users? Thank you very much. Rey1996ss (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He lied. The IPs he slandered were the ones updated the article and added results, which he doesn't. What he said is rather a content dispute. He refused to discuss anything, either in talk page or even in edit summary. I said "refer to 2006 FIFA World Cup" but he reverted without comments or any reason to justify his version which contained piping Wikilinks. 49.157.47.46 (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any vandalism, and honestly I don't see any revert warring. Why are you failing to discuss anything on the article talk page? Instead you both bring your dispute to my talk page? That isn't where it belongs. It seems you are both willing to communicate with me. I suggest you communicate with each other on the article talk page. Bear in mind that if the article is protected, neither of you would be able to edit it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For only auto-confirmed users please. That IP address is a user former blocked. Thank you. Rey1996ss (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works in a content dispute. I can protect the page so you cannot edit it along with an IP address, or I can block you both for warring. Again, go to the article talk page (which you haven't bothered to do yet) and start discussing your dispute rather than shopping for an administrator. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Anachronist ! I saw that you reverted some unsourced addition on the article Sufism. In the french wikipédia, the same user X998 (probably the same user as the different IPs who wrote the same unsourced edit) added an unsourced edit and has done the same additions in the french wiki. We revoked these additions but i saw that here it's last one has not yet been revoked. Thant's why i tell that as you were patrolling well on this article. Regards GF38storic (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I found it, and I removed it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:HD#Are the reviewers in general just not civil and welcoming?. you say "and by now the entire world knows that it cannot be used that way" (i.e. as a publicity platform).

I don't think this is true. I don't get a sense that most of the people coming here to publicise themselves or the affairs think they're breaking any rules: the internet is for promoting yourself, and Wikipedia is not only part of the internet, but one of the most prominent parts. Naturally, they suppose that getting yourself on Wikipedia is an important step in selling yourself. (Of course, they also often fail to recognise that they are engaged in promotion at all).

We understand what Wikipedia is not, but I don't believe that most people do - even people who at one level value Wikipedia's neutrality have likely never thought about what it takes to maintain that neutrality.

I know that when I see attempts to promote via Wikipedia I often get annoyed and want to shout at them, but I get that out of my system before replying, because I'm convinced that in most cases they have no reason to realise thay're doing anything wrong. ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of that. I was trying to explain why newcomers intending to promote something can be greeted in a non-friendly way. I should have said that it's my own hypothesis that the regulars here feel that being new is no excuse for ignorance because Wikipedia has been around for so long and the purpose of Wikipedia is so widely known. It doesn't help that there are hundreds of scammers spreading the message that promotion is what Wikipedia is for. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What could be better than beer or coffee with a fellow Silicon Valley old dude? I work in Mountain View and live in Los Altos, and can meet anywhere, but one of my favorite go-to places in the Computer History Museum, where I'm meeting an old friend this afternoon. They have a couple of new displays this month that include some of my stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. What do you have on display?

I've always wondered if the Computer History Museum could use my old Amiga 1000, complete with external memory and hard drive. I learned C, C++, and real-time programming on that machine. Last time I fired it up 20 years ago, it still worked. It's finicky though, need to let it get warm before inserting the boot disk, probably due to something loose on the daughterboard. It's been in a storage room.

I can't do this afternoon, but if you plan to be there again, I'm happy to join you for a beer! ~Anachronist (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they have beer there (but they do across the street), and I didn't mean you should join me this afternoon, but yes, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday are possible, or next week Wed or Thurs (AM) when they open again. You can search their collection, e.g. for Amiga 1000. I can introduce you to a docent if one is around, and you can see if there's any interest in more of that. October specials are described here; I have some of my things in both the "Mice" and "Ears" displays. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hi - I see that you've undone all my reverts to the editor who removed all mention of Issue One from the articles of its members on the basis that the source fails verification, but the source is Issue One's own website. Could you please let me know what your reasoning is here? Theknightwho (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find any mention of the names on the cited web page. Only after I reverted most of your edits, I noticed a button that displays the names. I started reverting myself at that point, but family matters got in the way and I was unable to complete it. I hope to get back to correcting all of this later tonight.

I suspect that the difficulty of verification was why the editor you originally reverted was removing the statements also. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist Thanks for self-reverting. You may be right about them having difficulties, but do note that they wrongly marked all their edits as minor, and gave the misleading edit summary "Cleaned up opening to bio" for a bunch of them, so I think they knew they weren't supposed to be removing them. Theknightwho (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I blocked that account.

I'm cleaning up my mess now. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! That went much quicker than I expec ted, because I could just roll back each of my edits without manually typing an edit summary each time. I believe I got them all. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and about "cleaned up opening bio", that would have been correct if removing the statement about Issue One from the lead. And the statement doesn't belong in the lead, and would be correctly removed, if it isn't mentioned in the article body. I didn't check all of the cases, I just reverted every one of my edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Haskell Harr has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 1 § Haskell Harr until a consensus is reached. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]