User talk:Toadspike

This is Toadspike's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 1 section is present.

Hi, your close would state: There is a clear consensus that "Church Fathers" is a proper name for the purposes of WP:NCCAPS and should be capitalized. Could you please be more specific as to where the strength of argument lies to reach such a conclusion, viewing the evidence and arguments through the lens of WP:NCCAPS or any other P&G relevant to determining what is a proper name that would be capitalised on WP. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I have read the above, but I am fairly busy at the moment and might only be able to reply by tomorrow. Toadspike [Talk] 15:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the comments there seems no other way of closing the discussion, many editors recognized the WP:COMMONSENSE of keeping the uppercasing of this familiar and historically grouping of a set number of individuals who shaped the Christian religion. Thanks for a good close. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157 NCCAPS, in its first, bolded sentence, tells us to use sentence case, unless the title is a proper name. This caveat is explained, in its second sentence, as unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. There is, to my knowledge, currently no project-wide consensus on what "would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence" means. One interpretation, which I believe you share, is that "always capitalized" means "capitalized in all sources". Another interpretation, expressed by many other participants in this RM, is that "always capitalized" means most sources capitalize the name throughout the source's text; this view emphasizes the grammatical definition of "proper name". The disagreement on "where to draw the line" came up in a recent Village Pump discussion (which I participated in); though not formally closed, it seems folks broadly agree that "always" in NCCAPS does not literally means "always". I only say all this to emphasize that neither interpretation is, at the moment, considered so indisputably contrary to our naming conventions that I can disregard it as an RM closer. Thus, my close must reflect the interpretation of the RM participants.

Editors in favor of the move, including you, presented evidence (Ngrams, Google Scholar results) to justify the move. Most other editors were not persuaded, for two broad reasons: 1. Many offered different interpretations of the evidence or disputed the accuracy of your methodology. 2. Editors opposing the move emphasized "proper name" as their standard for capitalization, disagreeing with the interpretation of "would always occur capitalized" as meaning "is capitalized in all sources". Both of these are reasononable differences of opinion. They are not arguments that I, as a closer, can discount as cut-and-dry disregard for naming conventions. It is not my duty as closer to investigate the evidence myself and come to my own conclusions about its strength (unless I had reason to think the evidence was being presented dishonestly, which I did not). It is also not for me to determine how NCCAPS should be interpreted. There were some arguments on both sides that I downweighted or discounted as not based on evidence or guidelines, but these were just a handful; this still left more than twice as many editors opposing the move as supporting it with reasonable arguments, which is not a margin I can disregard in good faith as a closer without clearly supervoting.

Also, in case there was any doubt, my reminder about our civility policy was not directed at you.

Best, Toadspike [Talk] 15:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you refer to at recent Village Pump discussion was "moved" from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) without including the earlier comments. The OP of the initial discussion questioned the semantics of always rather than the spirit and intent of the guidance or how it is understood linguistically.[1] The sentence from WP:NCCAPS For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence) is a truism and I see no one actually arguing against the truth of the statement. The corollary of this is ipso facto also a truism. WP:P&G represents the consensus of the broader community and the prevailing P&G on capitalisation and capitalisation of article titles (ie not just NCCAPS) has a history of long term stability. Consensus is not perfect agreement, as we see from the discussion you link. As you noted in your comment there, Wikipedia prefers to minimize capitalization, so the threshold cannot be 50%+1 of sources, it has to be a large majority [emphasis added]. This much is a settled matter.

You would indicate this view emphasizes the grammatical definition of "proper name". As something of a linguist, I think you would be aware that most European languages (with the notable exception of German) are quite rigorous in the application of capitalisation. They do not capitalise what are othererwise proper nouns when used attributively or adjectival forms of proper nouns. English does this. In English, it is also common to use capitalisation to denote significance, importance or for terms of art, where a term of art is an otherwise descriptive noun phrase that is given to have a particular meaning in a particular context.[2][3] These other uses of capitalisation explain a propensity to capitalise in specialist writing per WP:SSF. These other uses of capitalisation are not proper names, though In English, there is a common false perception of equivalence between what is a proper name and the orthography of capitalisation. This leads to a somewhat circular argument: We capitalise proper names therefore what we [might] capitalise are proper names. However, per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we do not capitalise for emphasis, distinction, importance or to denote a term of art. In the RM, there is an argument that Church Fathers (the capitalised form) has a semantic meaning different from the lowercase form. We also see comments: Clearly a proper noun distinguishing members of this group, the Church Fathers are referred to as a distinct group, which specifically applies only to those people who have been collectively recognised as such, and more. All of these arguments indicate capitalisation as a term of art that falls to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS - a matter raised in the RM. The argument that "Church fathers" or "church fathers" is non-specific and can mean something very different is not supported by perusal of sources nor was any actual evidence offered that would support this assertion - as raised in rebuttal in the RM.

Many people base their perception of what is a proper name on an incomplete definition and a perception that specificity of referent is a defining property when it is not. Per the RM, specificity of referent can also occur through the use if the definite article (the). Our article on proper name tells us that a proper name is not descriptive, as does the fuller definition here. Church fathers, however capitalised, is a descriptive term made specific through using the definite article. Claiming that because I see it capitalised it must be a proper noun is based on the false premise of equivalence and is logically fallacious. It is because of these general misperceptions that the spirit and intent of the prevailing P&G is to rely on evidence of usage to determine what we capitalise on WP rather than (incomplete) definitions and misinterpretations of what is a proper noun. A consequence is that we also capitalise descriptive names (eg French Revolution) when these are consistently capitalised in sources. No one has asserted (per your above) that NCCAPS tells us to rely on a definition of what is a proper noun|name. No one states a definition by which they would conclude this is a proper name (ie such assertions are unsubstantiated opinion).

Per this comment, I know that you are aware that consensus is determined through the lens of P&G and how WP:RMCIDC and WP:DISCARD apply. The prevailing P&G here requires evidence of usage in sources and a function of the closer is to ensure that any conclusion reached in respect to the evidence is a reasonable representation of the actual evidence. As with many RMs a very large proportion of the comments do not engage with the prevailing P&G or otherwise fall to DISCARD. I would note that the assessment of the type of evidence required here and its assessment is essentially a statistical question.

• Only one opposer (Chickdat) makes a specific reference to P&G. Even if their view is consistent with the spirit and intent of WP:AT (read as a whole), it still needs to be supported by evidence. Their view does not withstand unrebutted. Even if this view is reasonable Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names states: it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources). The actual evidence presented in this discussion indicates this threshold is not met for the uppercase term.
• The OP cites NCCAPS and that the term is far from always capped in sources. While MOS:CAPS is not directly, it is directly quoted: consistently capitalized in a substantial majority. There are also comments intended as references to MOS:CAPS: It is far from consistently capped and P&G is telling us that it is not necessary to cap.
• The raw ngram search here shows 53% capitalised based on two terms or 50% fully capitalised if including Church fathers, which does not support the present title. Capitalisation is based on usage in prose. There is no rebuttal to question this. It is well establisehed that ngrams also capture expected title case uses and overrepresent capitalisation with respect to prose - a matter raised in the RM and not disputed. Ngrams can be contexturalised to better capture prose usage. Randy presented this ngram for the church fathers. However, this does not reasonably exclude expected title case for tiles of references cited in sources - a matter raised in the RM. This ngram, contexturalising usage indicates a majority lowercase across the majority of examples. This ngram was also offered in rebuttal.
• One editor would state: The use of an N-gram here is deeply methodologically flawed as there are other circumstances in which those two words could be comfortably paired and the capitalized form is standard in academic literature to the best of my knowledge. And another: The use of an N-gram here is deeply methodologically flawed as there are other circumstances in which those two words could be comfortably paired and the capitalized form is standard in academic literature to the best of my knowledge. "Church fathers" or "church fathers" is non-specific and can mean something very different. The argument is that there is a semantic difference between the capitalised and uncapitalised form and that ngrams do not distingush the semantic difference. Both of these are premises made without substantiation (ie they are opinions). The rebuttal offered is based on actual google scholar evidence where the proportion of upper and lowercase is near equal and there is no evidence that church fathers (lowercase) refers to any other group other than those which are the subject of the article. Particular examples were offered and it was alleged that these were cherry picked. The response in rebuttal was: Pick and examine as many of the many lowercase examples in google scholar as you wish. They will not bare out your assertion that lowercase is a different topic. No example was produced to contradict this. The assertion that lowercase is a different topic is unsubstantiated (opinion). The opinion that lowercase is a different topic is reasonably shown to be false (disproven) by examination of actual evidence.
• It is one thing to dispute evidence but the basis for disputation must be substantiated if it is to carry weight.
• A simple google search includes many unreliable sources. It is not an appropriate sample consistent with P&G.
• As this is essentially a statistical question where the terms are in near equal proportions, are the two statistically different? Does 53% actually represent a majority or is it statistically too close to call? This is not an issue if one acknowledges that the consensus of the community is that it has to be a large majority before we apply capitalisation. As stated in the OP of the RM, what we are dealing with is is far from always capped in sources and we are not splitting hairs over whether this comes even close to a threshold of always either semantically or linguistically.
• Broad statements like Modern academic literature utilizes the capitalized form often enough are personal opinions (ie unsubstantiated) as to what modern academic literature actually does, as is the opinion that it is often enough.
• WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments (eg Founding Fathers) only carry weight if they are directly comparable and they are shown to represent best practice. This was not established. It was also rebutted in that there is no evidence that this represents best practice. While Randy presents an ngram for Fathers of the Church, this is not the title being discussed.

Your close does not appear to have been made through the lens of the prevailing P&G but by adopting a definition based argument which is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the prevailing P&G or actual evidence. Furthermore, your comment suggests an alternative view of NCCAPS which was not made in argument. Togeather, this could reasonably be seen as supervoting. It is also disappointing that you do not appear to have acted in accordance with the principles you have espoused elsewhere and which are consistent with how a closer is to determine consensus.

I apologise for the length but a detailed analysis requires detail. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, this is a lot. Yes, my close here may seem to contradict principles I've previously espoused elsewhere. I could try to thread the needle and explain in broad principles why they actually don't contradict, but in short: See boldface below and I disagree that Pbritti and Warrenmck's comments can be discounted.

In a situation like this, it is not possible for human editors to review and cite all of the millions of results on, say, Google Scholar, so I view arguments like "Modern academic literature utilizes the capitalized form often enough" as acceptable. You will counter with "but Ngrams", and I will say that the N-grams faced as much criticism as support and I cannot unilaterally rule that there was consensus that the N-grams are good evidence in favor of the move when there wasn't. Even if I know they are good evidence.

You are probably frustrated, but lets look at this the other way. What evidence would I have in favor of a move? Some N-grams that people disagreed with? A few results, of millions, on Google Scholar? All of this evidence was objected to in the discussion, and I have to close based on the discussion of the evidence, not the evidence itself.

I really would not mind if you took this to MRV; I would be interested to hear their opinions on the close. I might also consider overturning to "no consensus". Regardless, it is still clear to me that there wasn't a consensus to move.

(Also, this RM was a lot better than the MRV you linked: No locked socks, nobody cited the Wikipedia article itself, the OTHERSTUFF arguments were not obviously false, and there were no plain "per user" !votes. I am still not very happy with the quality of arguments, but I have to work with what I've got.) Toadspike [Talk] 10:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your close was good, acceptable, and followed both the discussion and the guidelines. There was no way to close it any differently, so nothing to be unhappy about (just the opposite, you got it right!). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a general observation on RMs, it would be nice if people focused their arguments more on the sources and less on their personal experience. Toadspike [Talk] 06:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your engagement and taking the time to read my Good lord, this is a lot post. I noted that this is essentially a statistical question to determine the proportion of casing. No, we don't have to trawl through millions of results to do this. We can rely on what is at least a reasonable facsimile of a sample of sources. We can do this by perusing a number of pages from a search of google scholar (or other data bases of sources). It doesn't take much to see that the casing here is in near equal proportions (ie not significantly different) and perusing the snippets also confirms context. Both points are made in the RM and can be verified against the search provided.

An RM is essentially a debate, where arguments are presented and the strengths or weaknesses of those arguments are scutinised by the participants. I get the impression that you view the consensus to be based upon the individual VOTES viewed in isolation from the fuller debate? Where Anglicanus states "Church fathers" or "church fathers" is non-specific and can mean something very different [emphasis added]. This is conjectur, with no evidence to substantiate their opinion. With reference to actual (verifiable) evidence, the premise was shown in debate to be false, while on the otherhand, no actual evidence was presented that would support the conjecture. Consequently, the argument carries no weight. This rebuttal applies equally to other similar claims, such as the argument by Warrenmck about verb forms or Randy's assertion, Of course lowercase is a different topic.

Where Warrenmck states the capitalized form is standard in academic literature to the best of my knowledge [emphasis added] this is clearly unsubstantiated opinion. Pbritti states: Modern academic literature utilizes the capitalized form often enough ... The capitalized form is also certainly the most common form of the name. I am at a loss as to what the bit in the middle means; however, they are expressing an unsubstantiated opinion as to what academic literature does. It cannot be verified. However, if this was a reference to google scholar, then claiming it is standard (consistently done) it is patently false, where the google scholar evidence presented in the debate shows near equal capitalisation.

OTHERCONTENT is closely related to WP:OTHERSTUFF, which more fully captures the spirit and intent of why simply linking to another article as a claim of precedence is not an argument of weight. Simply linking to Founding Fathers was effectively rebutted in a way consistent with OTHERCONTENT and OTHERSTUFF.

I am hard pressed to see any argument made by the opposers that has withstood the scrutiny of debate given how the evidence has been discussed or arguments that have substance when viewed through the lens of the prevailing P&G. Near equal capitalisation in sources is not the WP threshold for capitalisation no matter how one tries to dice it. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Toadspike, for withstanding the walls of text without changing your close. Not everyone does. A move review has been started, which hopefully will endorse your valid and discussion-appropriate close. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your well-reasoned contributions to AfD as of late. We need more editors like yourself active in the area! Eddie891 Talk Work 09:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is an honor! Thank you, Eddie! Toadspike [Talk] 10:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, I added another page to my watchlist recently. :) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented the consensus per your closure at Talk:Forspoken#Follow-up RFC on Japan sales; BMWF has since reverted your closure (claiming WP:RFCNEUTRAL) & reverted my edit to the article. While my inclination is to revert & suggest to the editor to follow the steps at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I'd also like to avoid triggering an edit war over this so thought I would reach out to you on next steps since you closed the RfC. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to do here. Toadspike closed a stale RFC after consensus was established. BMWF had enough time to vote. They can start a new RFC in the future if they like.2A00:FBC:EEE0:7188:C0AD:258D:91B6:241A (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it's been sorted out now, thanks. For the record:

• The RfC wording was neutral – a one-sentence question asking if a specific fact should be included in the lead or not.
• The RfC had run long enough, with nearly nine days since the last comment at the time of my close.
• The additional comment posted by BMWF would not have changed the outcome. Toadspike [Talk] 09:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just wanted to dot the i's in case this went to ANI since the edit war behavior I was worried about to did occur after I pinged you. I'm going to link to this at the talk page just to close the loop. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editors reverting RfC closure at Talk:Forspoken. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been contributing steadily with 1,100+ edits and 37 live articles created. Before formally requesting autopatrolled rights, I was wondering if you could kindly take a look at my contributions and let me know if I qualify. I’d really appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 02:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toadspike! I looked at Wikipedia recently because I had finished writing a couple articles about lesser-known typefaces (Ondine, Matrix and Stempel Schneidler). I have noticed that my article regarding Ondine was rejected. As far as I know, there's not many sources online diving deep into this font at all, as it's seldom seen as of recently. Could you please give me some advice as to how I can fix the article to get it approved? I'm new to writing Wikipedia pages, so any help or feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks so much! Esinconis (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Esinconis Yes, of course, I'd be happy to help. I am busy at the moment, but I will try to find some more sources later. I suspect the font is notable, we just don't have the right sources to prove that yet.

By the way, the draft was declined, not rejected. This means you can resubmit it after it has been improved. Toadspike [Talk] 05:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Previously I made a proposal at village pump for Baidu baike references/archives to be un-deprecated to be used as a way to access dead links. May I ask how the proposal is currently going? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac Hey there. The discussion was archived here [4]. As I understand it, you are currently able to add links to Baidu Baike archive pages, you just get a warning when doing so. Since that is (to me at least) a valid use of Baidu Baike links, you can just ignore the warning. Toadspike [Talk] 07:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man; currently having a slight dispute on the Wuzhishan City article regarding that exact topic. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac I am a little disappointed to see that neither of you has begun a discussion on the article talk page, which would be the next step here. Toadspike [Talk] 07:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for assisting me regarding my username. I value your feedback and appreciate that you took time our of your day to assist me. MWFwiki (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toadspike,

In a current discussion on ANI today, you state that "all the uninvolved admins are too scared to follow policy" and "At this point we, the community, just have to admit that no uninvolved admin has the guts to block this longtime editor for personal attacks."

Given your low opinion of our current admin crew, I'd like to encourage you to launch an RfA or participate in the next cycle of administrator elections. I'm sure you are not "too scared" to do so and that you have "the guts" to go for administrator status. Then you can make a change in our administrator corps through your personal bravery which we could use more of. I sincerely hope you consider taking the next step and seek becoming an admin. Go for it! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably put Wikipedia:Administrator elections/2025 on your Watchlist as the specifics of the next election get settled upon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz, I appreciate the vote of confidence. I'm putting it off till September for personal reasons (despite my recent burst of activity here, I have to focus on Real Life™ for two months and will then be traveling for a month).

I've already got that page watchlisted, even though I'm not planning to run myself, because I am one of the many people trying to move the AELECT process forward (e.g. here). I'm hoping we get as many qualified candidates this time as we did last time. Toadspike [Talk] 10:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Toadspike, the Developing Countries WikiContest will be returning for a second year, and sign-ups are now open! The contest will run from 1 July to 30 September, and the objective remains the same: improve as many articles relating to developing countries as you can to help fight systemic bias on Wikipedia.

In other news, we have a new face on the coordinator team this year: last year's sixth-place finisher, Arconning (talk · contribs)! The coordinators would like to extend a sincere thanks to Ixtal (talk · contribs), who is leaving the team, without whom the contest would not exist. After feedback from contestants last year, the scoring rules are undergoing some modifications; the new rules and a summary of the changes made will be posted to the contest talk page shortly.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or contact one of the coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Toadspike,

I see you are overall an expert on Chinese related topics.

Currently, there is a discussion on Talk:SWAT#Sources and changes where another editor has tried to claim multiple Chinese sources(including, funnily enough, websites of local public security bureaus) are unreliable. May I ask if you could maybe help clear things up for the user, as he seems to be a new editor and not familiar with policies(while doing borderline Wikilawyering). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful to avoid canvassing. Parts of this message, such as "borderline Wikilawyering", are not neutral and you seem to be pinging me because of my previous views on these sources, which could be seen as vote-stacking. I may take a look later, but I am somewhat busy this week, so I can't be certain I will comment on this rather lengthy discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 14:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry, will use a more neutral tone to avoid canvassing; I don't really seek to vote stack, but the user apparently doesn't want to listen to me, and I think you are more a expert in this area. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Toadspike,

Could you close the Randy Cooper article? I think that keeping it open for over 3 weeks is an unnecessary embarrassment for the subject. Also, my experience with AFD's is that hardcore deletionists are the personalities most attracted to old AFD's. Thank you. I appreciate your help. Orlando Davis (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orlando Davis Asking one person in particular to close a discussion, especially in a message referring to "hardcore deletionists", can be considered an inappropriate form of canvassing. I am sure that this will be closed soon, but if you are really worried, the appropriate places to ask for a close are WT:AFD and WP:CR. In any case, I am fairly busy and confined to a mobile device today, so I am unlikely to do any closing of discussions in the next ten hours or so. Toadspike [Talk] 06:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an article has been open too long, it's perfectly within Wiki policy to ask and administrator to close it. Wikipedia frowns on embarrassing subjects. It's not canvassing, it's just me venting about a flaw in Wikipedia. Troll types are more attracted to forums. There have been studies on the matter. I could canvass if I really wanted to. I don't. I understand your point of view. Thank you for your patience. Orlando Davis (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to publish my page --AshrafSalamin (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AshrafSalamin The content currently at User:AshrafSalamin is unsuitable for the encyclopedia as it is promotional and cites no sources. Please see WP:42 for a brief explanation of our notability requirements. It is also very difficult to write an article about yourself, as our articles must be written from a neutral point of view; WP:AUTO explains this issue and others. Toadspike [Talk] 05:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]