Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	Archive 1; Poll 2004; Archive 2; Archive 3; Archive 4; Archive 5; Archive 6; Archive 7; Archive 8; Archive 9; Archive 10; Archive 11; Archive 12; Archive 13; Archive 14; See also the talk pages of the subpages;
Subpages
	current list of subpages;
	Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Death threats; Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Extension;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:17, 16 October 2020

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the No personal attacks page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14: 30 days

Why is this limited to editors?

Why is this policy limited to protect only editors from personal attacks? I often see some choice vitriol being flung at public figures, subjects of WP:BLPs, historical figures, etc. It seems that these are allowed, because my efforts to redact such conversation results in a reversion and the offending material is kept for posterity. An ad hominem as a logical fallacy is a false form of debate, and as such, should not be allowed on talk pages just if we're going to follow proper form and decorum. Furthermore, most talk pages are constrained by WP:NOTFORUM which would necessarily exclude personal attacks against anyone. Furthermore, consider that we have no idea who is an editor, and who is not an editor. President Trump goes on Twitter with such alacrity that it wouldn't surprise me if he's tried to edit Wikipedia at least once, as well. Public figures aren't going to declare publicly that they edit Wikipedia, so there is morally no way to restrict NPA to editors unless we only count what's directly addressed to those editors by their editor name (hint: we don't do that.) Elizium23 (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the practical point of the rule. The reason we (or any website) has that rule isn't because there's something inherently immoral about personal attacks. It's because personal attacks tend to heat up arguments, and make them more about people than articles. And both of those things are bad things that we don't want to happen. Loki (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: I'm not an admin, just one of those eds you mention. May I peek at the dispute that brings you here? If you're interested in outside eyes and advice please share a link or two. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy, the penultimate incident was, I believe, on WP:RSN and I don't feel like spelunking for it. Here's the latest, FWIW. Elizium23 (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one. I couldn't find any at RSN. I know there was a large, extended rant that I redacted, and was promptly reinstated. I'll think on it some more. Elizium23 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Elizium, looks to me like those examples fall under WP:ACDS (Code AP (post 1932 US politics) and Code BLP). All editors working in those areas can be given a no-fault/no-shame FYI Template:Ds/alert once per 12 months. If you try to give the alert you'll get a pink mesage box where you can look to see if they already have a current one. There is no way to just stop people from that sort of thing, but effective use of DS and WP:AE is probably the best way to take a bite out of the repeat offender rate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy, what, er, policy do they violate? Elizium23 (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the path has already been pointed out in this thread, but to elaborate a bit... you can get some self-education on the policies and also the enforcement procedures by starting to read the archives at the WP:BLPN...next time you see an example of this behavior post a thread there to discuss the specifics. And to learn and maybe prep to do a formal complaint search archives at WP:ANI and WP:AE for examples of past formal complaints based on the WP:BLP policy at ANI, or WP:NEWBLPBAN at AE. For a deep dive into BLP see the Arbitration case WP:ARBBLP and for a similar dive into US politics WP:ARBAP. Both of those are the final decisions, they have additional pages of discussion that will also be informative.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be allowed to praise public figures? E Eng 12:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, no. Discussion pages are for purpose of improving the overall project, period, for which we must maintain a neutral point of view; wandering off into other chit chat would fall under WP:FORUM. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe we need a No Personal Praise policy? E Eng 16:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope... Just as this policy is for editors so is the various ways to say H:THANKS. Praise for public figures, if based on lies, is a BLP vio, and if based on RSs is already covered by WP:FORUM and the purpose of talk pages per WP:TPG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The literal definition of personal attack.

Toddst1, “Not seeing consensus” for an edit is not justification to revert an edit, like you did here. See WP:DRNC for a full explanation if one is needed. Do you have a good reason to revert? The bullet I added simply clarifies that what we define as a personal attack at Ad hominem, to which Personal attack redirects, is, you know, a personal attack, and therefore prohibited by No Personal Attacks. So I don’t understand how there can be no consensus, or even objection, to this. Can you please explain, or, better yet, revert your revert? Thanks! —В²C ☎ 01:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are experienced enough to know that eventually the community tires of problematic users, and they are removed. Someone called you out, so you want to change policy to have a handy rejoinder next time. No. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack! You criticized an editor's behavior! E Eng 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What??? —В²C ☎ 03:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Implying that I’m a problematic user deserving of removal? If that’s not a personal attack, what is? Resorting to personal attacks on the talk page for No Personal Attacks? Unbelievable. Never mind the substance of the edit in question. And I’m the problematic user??? —В²C ☎ 03:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check your user page and let me know how you feel about the wasted community time regarding move proposals for articles like Sarah Jane Brown. The issue I hinted at is here at WP:AN (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack! You criticized an editor's behavior! E Eng 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice detraction. Behavior at an RM years ago - for better or worse - is totally irrelevant to the question at hand: are Personal attacks personal attacks that are relevant to this policy against personal attacks? If so, let’s be explicit about it. If not, let’s explain why. —В²C ☎ 04:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GMAFB! You attempted to unilaterally change WP:Policy with no discussion. You were reverted. Get over it. WP:BRD is <- That way. Don't just winge about it and point to a lofty essay. Toddst1 (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1, I made a bold edit. You reverted, but without justification or explanation. I already have explained why “not seeing consensus“ is not justification. Now you cite BRD which “does not encourage reverting” and says “when reverting, be specific about your reasons in your edit summary”. In your comment below you cite a context (“argument about problem editors”) that is excluded by the wording you removed (context specified is rebutting an editor’s argument, not presenting an argument about an editor’s problematic behavior). However, the wording can be changed to be even clearer about that. —В²C ☎ 21:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think not seeing consensus isn't a justification for reverting a change to a policy page, you shouldn't be participating in such discussions. E Eng 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about criticizing behavior

It seems that criticism of a person's behavior is at the core of any substantial argument about problem editors. Labeling such criticism as a personal attack is absurd and would shut down almost all discussion of problematic editors. So I removed it. I think adding it to the policy page was absurd and, as pointed out above by @Johnuniq:, could easily be considered WP:POINTY behavior or WP:FORCEDINTERPRET with the recent circumstances at AN.

You (Born2cycle) clearly have no idea of what an ad-hominem attack is and should stop accusing others of doing so. With such a poor understanding of the issue, you should seriously vet any changes to policy you might think appropriate in that area. Toddst1 (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack! You criticized an editor's behavior! E Eng 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1, of course "criticism of a person's behavior is at the core of any substantial argument about problem editors", but arguments about problem editors should be made only in appropriate places; not on article or policy talk pages. That's the context presumed on this page (or it wouldn't make any sense at all), not a problem editor's talk page or on AN/I where criticism of problematic editors is of course appropriate. To be clear, that's why I included the clause, "in order to rebut or discredit an argument presented by that person", in my edit[1]. Criticism of an editor's behavior is made to present a problem about that behavior, not to rebut some argument that editor made about article or policy content. An ad-hominem attack is when the person making an argument is criticized as a counter to their argument - it's a logical fallacy. What's not to understand? --В²C ☎ 04:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this edit is consonant with WP:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Therefore I find it acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would change "See Personal attack" in this edit to "See WP:TPYES". Bus stop (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, or link to WP:FOC, which is policy? The reason I linked to Personal attack (which redirects to Ad hominem, appropriately) is because many people don’t seem to understand what it means, as suggested by the reverting of that edit. And it’s a very good article. But linking to policy might be more appropriate. Thanks. —В²C ☎ 15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:FOC. I wasn't are of WP:FOC. Why not mention all three, Born2cycle? As in:

See Personal attack, see WP:FOC, and see WP:TPG#YES.

I'm serious—I think mentioning all three makes the point more emphatically than just linking to one area of policy or guideline. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though the multiple “see”s aren’t needed.

See Personal attack, WP:FOC, and WP:TPG#YES.

—-В²C ☎ 16:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about this?

Incorporating Toddst1's concerns and Bus stop's suggestions, how about this?

... some types of comments are never acceptable:

...

On an article or policy talk page, outside of an appropriate venue for discussing the behavior of a particular editor, criticisms of a person or their behavior, even if well-founded, in order to rebut or discredit an argument presented by that person. See Ad hominem, WP:FOC, and WP:TPG#YES.

Okay? --В²C ☎ 16:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! Toddst1 (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Endorsement by me. Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added it with a slight wording variation[2]. Hope that’s okay.

On an article or policy talk page (not appropriate venues for discussing editor behavior), criticisms of an editor or their behavior, even if well-founded, in order to rebut or discredit an argument presented by that editor. See Ad hominem, WP:FOC, and WP:TPG#YES.

Also added the highlighted clause to this bullet to integrate better.

Even in appropriate venues for discussing editor behavior, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.

—В²C ☎ 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another objection

Johnuniq reverted [3] the above change for the following reason: “it's unfortunate, but some editors are time sinks or otherwise problematic, and that occassionaly needs to be pointed out”.

It may need to be pointed out, but is the article or policy talk page where it needs to be pointed out? To my understanding, that contradicts what this policy says in a number of places, including:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia.
Comment on content, not on the contributor.
Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.
comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.
It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user.
Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents).
- NOTE: This implies discussion of a user's conduct or history IS in itself a personal attack when NOT done in the appropriate forum
[Personal attacks] on article talk pages tend to move the discussion away from the article and towards individuals. Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together.
If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you can leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Avoid responding on a talk page of an article, as this tends to escalate matters.

All of these important statements quoted from this policy are consistent with and support the statement I added which was reverted,

On an article or policy talk page (not appropriate venues for discussing editor behavior), criticisms of an editor or their behavior, even if well-founded, in order to rebut or discredit an argument presented by that editor. See Ad hominem, WP:FOC, and WP:TPG#YES.

and they directly contradict the claim made by Johnuniq to justify their revert. In fact, this revert demonstrates why it’s important to include such a statement in the policy: even some experienced editors don’t seem to realize “pointing out” problematic editor behavior on an article or policy talk page (or edit summary for that matter) is a violation of this policy. —-В²C ☎ 05:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts to change this policy came soon after a disagreement at AN permalink where two different editors made these remarks: 'I weigh the opinion of generalists higher than those of obsessive page-movers' and 'you misspelled "track record"'. After dismissing their views as ad hominem attacks, you edited this policy (diff) to explicitly declare that such comments are personal attacks (and hence can be redacted and the perpetrator blocked). In an ideal community, people would not make remarks such as those quoted here, and frequent commenting along those lines would result in sanctions after a warning. However, there is no such thing as an ideal community as is seen daily when those with an infinite amount of time doggedly pursue discussions which most would regard as settled. WP:NPA does not need enhancements to outlaw problematic comments and such situations would need to be evaluated on their merits. I would vote against sanctions for the AN permalink case, but your change would reward those who cannot let things go. Johnuniq (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack! You criticized an editor's behavior! E Eng 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are examples (albeit relatively minor ones) of statements that should not be made on talk pages for all of the many reasons clearly explained on this policy page, some of which I summarized above. My argument to reopen the MR in question in that AN discussion, by the way, prevailed, despite the attempts by some to derail the discussion with ad hominem attacks. The goal here is not to provide a basis for redacting anything, or for sanctions against anyone. It’s to elevate the level of discourse and argument in our Talk page discussions to discourage discussion of editor behavior and focus on content to develop consensus. It’s not about taking us to the ideal, which is impossible, but it is about trying to bring us closer to it.

To that end, your objection to the edit seems to be not about the content, but a concern about how it might be wielded as a tactic to redact user comments and obtain sanctions? WP:RPA is already quite discouraging of redacting the comments of others, and adding the statement in question doesn’t change that. This statement provides no more basis to redact others’ comments than existing statements in the policy, including the ones I quoted above, already do. So I see no reason to share this concern. Similarly about sanctions and blocks. If statements already in this policy don’t justify a redaction or sanction in a given situation, then including the statement you reverted doesn’t make the case any stronger. All the change in question does is attempt to reduce the incidence of editors making critical comments about other editors inappropriately on article/policy talk pages, something we both agree would be an improvement - moving us closer to the ideal. —В²C ☎ 06:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 {{U|Toddst1}}, “Not seeing consensus” for an edit is not justification to revert an edit, like you did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&type=revision&diff=981392422&oldid=981388155&diffmode=source  here]. See [[WP:DRNC]] for a full explanation if one is needed. Do you have a good reason to revert? The bullet I added simply clarifies that what we define as a personal attack at [[Ad hominem]], to which [[Personal attack]] redirects, is, you know, a personal attack, and therefore prohibited by No Personal Attacks. So I don’t understand how there can be no consensus, or even objection, to this. Can you please explain, or, better yet, revert your revert? Thanks! —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 01:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 :You are experienced enough to know that eventually the community tires of problematic users, and they are removed. Someone called you out, so you want to change policy to have a handy rejoinder next time. No. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 01:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::Personal attack! You criticized an editor's behavior! [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 ::What??? —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 03:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 ::Really? Implying that I’m a problematic user deserving of removal? If that’s not a personal attack, what is? Resorting to personal attacks on the talk page for No Personal Attacks? Unbelievable. Never mind the substance of the edit in question. And I’m the problematic user??? —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 03:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 :::Check your user page and let me know how you feel about the wasted community time regarding move proposals for articles like [[Sarah Jane Brown]]. The issue I hinted at is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#On the underlying issue...|here at WP:AN]] ([[Special:PermanentLink/981405934#On the underlying issue...|permalink]]). [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::Personal attack! You criticized an editor's behavior! [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 ::::Nice detraction. Behavior at an RM years ago - for better or worse - is totally irrelevant to the question at hand: are [[Personal attack]]s personal attacks that are relevant to this policy against personal attacks? If so, let’s be explicit about it. If not, let’s explain why.   —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 04:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 :GMAFB! You attempted to unilaterally change [[WP:Policy]] with [[WP:TALKFIRST|no discussion]]. You were reverted. Get over it. [[WP:BRD]] is <- That way.  Don't just winge about it and point to a lofty essay.  [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 21:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 ::{{u|Toddst1}}, I made a bold edit. You reverted, but without justification or explanation. I already have explained why “not seeing consensus“ is not justification. Now you cite BRD which “does not encourage reverting” and says “when reverting, be specific about your reasons in your edit summary”. In your comment below you cite a context (“argument about problem editors”) that is excluded by the wording you removed (context specified is rebutting an editor’s argument, not presenting an argument about an editor’s problematic behavior). However, the wording can be changed to be even clearer about that. —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 21:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
+:::If you think {{tq|not seeing consensus}} isn't a justification for reverting a change to a policy page, you shouldn't be participating in such discussions. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 ===Discussion about criticizing behavior===
@@ Line 71: / Line 74: @@
 You (Born2cycle) clearly have no idea of what an ad-hominem attack is and should stop accusing others of doing so.  With such a poor understanding of the issue, you should seriously vet any changes to policy you might think appropriate in that area.  [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 21:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::Personal attack! You criticized an editor's behavior! [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 : {{U|Toddst1}}, of course "criticism of a person's behavior is at the core of any substantial argument about problem editors", but arguments about problem editors should be made only in appropriate places; not on article or policy talk pages. That's the context presumed on this page (or it wouldn't make any sense at all), not a problem editor's talk page or on AN/I where criticism of problematic editors is of course appropriate. To be clear, that's why I included the clause, "in order to rebut or discredit an argument presented by that person", in my edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=981388155&diffmode=source]. Criticism of an editor's behavior is made to present a problem about that behavior, not to rebut some argument that editor made about article or policy content. An ad-hominem attack is when the person making an argument is criticized ''as a counter to their argument'' - it's a logical fallacy. What's not to understand? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 04:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@@ Line 126: / Line 130: @@
 and they directly contradict the claim made by {{U|Johnuniq}} to justify their revert. In fact, this revert demonstrates why it’s important to include such a statement in the policy: even some experienced editors don’t seem to realize “pointing out” problematic editor behavior on an article or policy talk page (or edit summary for that matter) is a violation of this policy.  —-[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 05:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 :Your attempts to change this policy came soon after a disagreement at [[Special:PermanentLink/981405934#On the underlying issue...|AN permalink]] where two different editors made these remarks: '{{tq|I weigh the opinion of generalists higher than those of obsessive page-movers}}' and '{{tq|you misspelled "track record"}}'. After dismissing their views as ''ad hominem'' attacks, you edited this policy ([[Special:Diff/981388155|diff]]) to explicitly declare that such comments are personal attacks (and hence can be redacted and the perpetrator blocked). In an ideal community, people would not make remarks such as those quoted here, and frequent commenting along those lines would result in sanctions after a warning. However, there is no such thing as an ideal community as is seen daily when those with an infinite amount of time doggedly pursue discussions which most would regard as settled. WP:NPA does not need enhancements to outlaw problematic comments and such situations would need to be evaluated on their merits. I would vote against sanctions for the AN permalink case, but your change would reward those who cannot let things go. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::Personal attack! You criticized an editor's behavior! [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 ::Yes, those are examples (albeit relatively minor ones) of statements that should not be made on talk pages for all of the many reasons clearly explained on this policy page, some of which I summarized above. My argument to reopen the MR in question in that AN discussion, by the way, prevailed, despite the attempts by some to derail the  discussion with ad hominem attacks. The goal here is not to provide a basis for redacting anything, or for sanctions against anyone. It’s to elevate the level of discourse and argument in our Talk page discussions to discourage discussion of editor behavior and focus on content to develop consensus. It’s not about taking us to the ideal, which is impossible, but it is about trying to bring us closer to it.
 ::To that end, your objection to the edit seems to be not about the content, but a concern about how it might be wielded as a tactic to redact user comments and obtain sanctions? [[WP:RPA]] is already quite discouraging of redacting the comments of others, and adding the statement in question doesn’t change that. This statement provides no more basis to redact others’ comments than existing statements in the policy, including the ones I quoted above, already do. So I see no reason to share this concern. Similarly about sanctions and blocks.  If statements already in this policy don’t justify a redaction or sanction in a given situation, then including the statement you reverted doesn’t make the case any stronger. All the change in question  does is attempt to reduce the incidence of editors making critical comments about other editors inappropriately on article/policy talk pages, something we both agree would be an improvement - moving us closer to the ideal.   —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 06:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)