User talk:Volunteer Marek

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		"happy that we finally got a 'self-described neutral observer'" - that made me laugh. That was a positive add. Rockypedia (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I was wondering why I saw you clearing your talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Gandy orders a second round. Cheers to one of our best! Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

*hic* here's another :) sláinte! ——SerialNumber54129 15:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom statement

Extended content

Why is Icewhiz listing User:Loosmark, an account that was banned... NINE FREAKING YEARS AGO, as a party in this case? Why is Icewhiz listing User:Poeticbent, a user who has stopped editing over a year ago, as a party in this case? Both of these listing seems like a bad attempt at prejudicing the case, and WP:GAMEing the request? Why not list users who are actually currently active in the area? I would like to immediately point out a very glaring fact about the way that Icewhiz presents this request. He has an opening paragraph about "Holocaust denial/distortion in Poland". He then lists some diffs from a couple editors (Loosemark and Poeticbent) who are no longer active on Wikipedia - and who obviously are not going to respond. Only I am. Let's put aside for the moment the question of whether these two editors' actions actually do represent this "distortion" Icewhiz is talking about. What he does then is have a separate section entitled "VM's conduct". Notice that he does NOT directly accuse ME of "Holocaust denial/distortion". He ... just insinuates it. Via a bullshit non-sequitur. "Here, first I'll list some problematic users. Then I'll list another user and hope that readers will infer that this guy is also problematic". Hey Icewhiz - if you ARE accusing me of "Holocaust denial/distortion" then 1) Fuck. You. and 2) have the fucking guts to say it outright rather than insinuating it like a sleazy weasel. Are you? This way of presenting the request is horribly and utterly sleazy, dishonest and scummy. Either he is accusing me or he isn't. If he is, he needs to fucking say it. If he's not, he needs to make that clear as well (and strike that implicit accusation) as that's one helluva serious charge. Indeed, making such an accusation without backing it up is grounds for an indef ban on its own. And if he is accusing me of something like that then he, and whoever takes the charge serious can go to fucking hell. You don't get to lie about people like that. I have not done anything remotely justifying such an accusation and neither Icewhiz nor anyone else here really knows anything about me, what my actual ethnic background is, what happened to MY FUCKING FAMILY during WW2 and the Holocaust or anything related.THIS is why I am using strong language here because it is more than justified. If this is the accusation then this fucking asshole needs to be banned. Now.

Seeing as your statement is over lengthy - here's some way I thought it could be shortened. Personally, I would delete the parts in red. I mean you no disrespect, and I hope you will feel better. starship.paint (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I concur, this would be a good refactor. And it is worth noting two arbitrators concur that some of the language you are using is, well, not optimal. Really, keeping it cool is always a good advice. Do read Paul's statement too, where he makes a great point that some disputes are won not due to sources or arguments, but because one side baits another one into NPAs and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Here’s my second view, since you apparently still need to cut your statement to 750 words. Don’t spend too many words defending yourself. In my view, that stuff goes to the Evidence page if a case is opened - simply say you disagree with the accusations and that you have your own evidence to present on the Evidence page if it comes to it. Of course it’s natural to defend yourself but I think the case submission page is not the one to do it.

If you want the Arbs to take the case, you must follow their guidelines. Show the Arbs what’s the problem with diffs and concise explanation. Show them where previous dispute resolution failed - this proves why they are necessary. starship.paint (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that the Statement by Robert McClenon argues on why ArbCom should take the case, not ANI. Perhaps then, you can focus on what's the problem to be addressed. starship.paint (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 14:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Here, AGK says word limits are not absolute and any editor may request (by post at this page) an extension to their Evidence limits. starship.paint (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Interview Request

Hello, Volunteer Marek. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Etchubykalo (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration

[1] - I am surprised. His table is so ridiculous I thought it does not worth response. Please pay attention that Arbs want everyone to follow word limit on the page. This will be a completely different Evidence page. The guy will remove himself this table. My very best wishes (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I quickly looked at your discussion on PS. talk page, and it is rather obvious for me that I. has absolutely no intentions to withdraw the case or agree with you about anything. I think this your comment was up to the point, meaning you should fix your Evidence page, and show whatever you want to show with diffs, rather than with words. My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

And looking at this discussion [2], I must tell that Paul Siebert is wrong. It does not really matter how much someone has been criticized. Someone famous who was right (let's say Charles Darwin) can be criticized a lot. But a Stalinist-revisionist historian (let's say Yuri Zhukov (historian)) may receive few to zero negative reviews about, because no one knows about him and no one cares. We have WP:RS, it should simply be followed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

can you help me with a source

I made this change - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctuary_of_St._Jadwiga,_Trzebnica&diff=903427381&oldid=903427064

It is currently the only reference on the page. As you can see, it looks really messy because I just used the opening and closing ref tags and nothing else. I have done other references from web pages by basically copying and pasting other references and replacing the info inside them with the info from whatever source I was using, but I don't think it would work right with this source, because this is a Google Books URL. Looking for help. Thank you. Mike Winowicz (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I found an example of "cite book" and I copied-pasted that and put in the right info. It worked. Mike Winowicz (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Winowicz: You can use Wikipedia:ProveIt for a set of templates.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I installed it. Will try to use it next time I have a reference to add. Mike Winowicz (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

So I just used it for the first time at Świnoujście. Thank you for the link to that, it was incredibly helpful. Mike Winowicz (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Talk Pages

Hi Volunteer Marek, as a reminder the Arbitration Committee has required that the talk pages for the Antisemitism in Poland case be sectioned not threaded. I'll be moving your comments to your section shortly as a clerk action. You may want to reformat them in order to keep your line of thought coherent. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stanisław Radkiewicz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buzuluk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism in Poland Arbitration Case

Hello I'm Cameron11598 and I am a clerk for the arbitration committee. I recently removed some comments you made here. Please keep in mind that all editors are required to act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum on arbitration pages, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so. I am also required by our procedures to warn you that arbitration clerks are authorized by the arbitration policy and ArbCom precedent to sanction users for conduct on arbitration pages, including by blocks and topic bans from Arbitration Committee pages. Please refrain from such personal attacks in the future. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: Picture a chart

LoL. -- llywrch (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

BRD

I do get that your vote would generally shift consensus to include here [[3]]. However, as there was clearly an on going discussion of the material [[4]] it is always better if you engage in the discussion before reverting the edits under discussion. Springee (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

On campus

'on campus' means in any university campus, as per standard usage. As to what part of the text it summarized, it summarized the main article at the top of the first section [5], which perhaps needs to be tweaked to mention, what was originally in the text until shifted to the main art5icle, that talking about Palestinian issues on campus is controversial. I'd appreciate it if you considered reverting.- Thanks Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: "campus" can actually mean any number of things. A company's headquarters or production site can be referred to as a "campus". Grounds of religious institutions are sometimes described as a "campus". At the very least this is very bad writing. If it's a university campus then WHICH university is being referred to? Some American university? Some Israeli university? Palestinian? British? Fijian? And if it's, say, American university, again, WHICH one? University of Alabama? Harvard? Appalachian West-Central Community College? The sentence is just confusing in there.

And it doesn't actually summarize that section. There isn't anything in that section about education or campuses.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Contextually there was no ambiguity. The text was written based on English usage, not North American usage. In English usage campus overwhelmingly refers to ‘The grounds and buildings of a university or college,’ a sense widely shared and clarified by context in NAmerica. See Campus Watch, and Campus.

Your second point was correct. Could I suggest that in a page subject to edit-warring where gutting the article is a priority for some, any concerns be set forth on the talk page. It took just a minute to readjust the section to include that missing matter, that had been transferred to the main sister article in scaling back the length of the page, so that the lead phrasing you removed reflected material further down the page. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: - if you don't mind, I'll copy this discussion to the talk page and continue it there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Sensible move, and you certainly don't need my permission (for anything) Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

1RR violation on History of the Jews in Poland

As demonstrated by Icewhiz here, you have violated 1RR. Please take the opportunity to self-revert. El_C 07:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I'd be happy to except it's already been reverted. Icewhiz's complaint was made already AFTER it had been reverted and appears to be a response to this comment which points out that Icewhiz and Francois Robere were reverting on behalf of each other on something like half a dozen articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Naturally, I wouldn't ask you to self-revert when that is no longer possible — so that's one me. That having been said, your missteps lately, in a topic area which is both under an open Arbitration case and is also subject to existing restrictions, are getting to be a bit much. I will be noting this violation on the Arbitration page, again. Please do better. El_C 21:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: - can you please explain what you mean by "missteps"? And by that I don't mean "repeat the false accusations made by Icewhiz".

And speaking of "missteps", how about Icewhiz inserting blatantly false information into an article, with fake sourcing, and then pretending that the source actually supports it? 1RR vio is bad, but it was an honest mistake. This here is in WP:HOAX territory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is another "misstep": Icewhiz inserting himself into a disagreement he was not part of simply because it involved me. Worse, it seems that this time he actually took a different view [6] than he did several months ago simply to disagree with me. And then he has the audacity to accuse *me* of "stalking" and "hounding"??? Jfc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to have time to look into that content that you claim is a hoax. I suggest you use dispute resolution to bring more attention to the article in general, and that issue, specifically. Or bring it to the attention of the arbitrators. I won't presume to advise you which. Anyway, missteps: like technically violating 3RR or violating 1RR, both times it seems due to carelessness. Please just try to be more cognizant. Thanks. El_C 02:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That's kind of the problem here though isn't? Nobody wants "to look into that content". Even when the violation is blatant (one of the sources is in English, the other can be easily google translated).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. But for your own self-interest, I would advise on drafting some sort of synopsis that goes beyond here is the hoax diff. If you can't get people interested enough to take the plunge blind, maybe spoonfeeding them the evidence would do the trick. That's how I like my evidence, at least. With quotes and links and all that jazz. El_C 02:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Which I already did here. But ArbCom is ... slow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Named in Temporary Injunction

Hi Volunteer Marek, in the open Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case, a temporary injunction has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland (temporary injunction)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) and Icewhiz (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or commenting about one another, except that they may submit (directly to the committee) responses to a proposed decision in these proceedings. Arbitrators supporting will desire immediate implementation under net 4 rules.

For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland (temporary injunction)

Recent edits on Bielski Partisans

You may or may not have noticed some edits on your watchlist, and I understand you may not be able to comment on this. So, FYI, this is a message I left for Icewhiz on his talk page: "Considering that this article has been edited heavily by you and VM last year, I think it might be prudent if you self-reverted. I think some of your edits are removing content that VM added, or otherwise the two of you revert-warred last year. I think that some AE admin or ArbCom should issue a clarification on whether any of you are allowed to edit such articles, and if so, how to deal with this issue, as it clearly has scope for abuse, even if unintentional, with things like 'first mover' - does it mean that you and VM can now effectively split articles you disagreed in the past between you, based on who edits them first post interaction ban? I'd again encourage you and VM to ask for clarification and/or adopt a policy of not editing such articles until it is given." I recommend that you ask for such clarifications soon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision listed

The proposed decision in the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case has been released, and it contains one or more findings of fact or remedies which relate to you. Please review this proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@L235: - question: how is our ability to "review this proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements" on the talk page affected by the interaction ban that is in place? Like, does the IBAN not apply to this talk page? Volunteer Marek 04:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Following consultation with the Committee, we are prepared to say that as long as you stick with the sectioned format and do not ping or respond directly to the other party to the IBAN, you may post responses to the PD directly on the PD talk page. If you have any questions as to whether a particular edit would violate the IBAN, you may submit it to the clerks for review at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org before posting it. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@L235: Can I respond directly to User:Levivich? Obviously theres no way to do that without mentioning edits by parties subject to the IBAN. Volunteer Marek 06:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You may mention diffs by the other party on the PD talk, yeah, as long as you don't respond to their comments. Without knowing what you're planning on posting, I wouldn't know whether it specifically is OK, but if you send along a copy to clerks-l, we will let you know if we think it's OK. Alternatively, you can send any comments on the PD directly to arbcom-en, where the arbs will read it and where it definitely won't be an IBAN violation. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Caution re Walter Kuhn

With this edit to Walter Kuhn you joined a dispute where a party you are banned from interacting with is already engaged. Icewhiz contributed to discussions about the lead sentence of this article at RSN and NPOVN. While this may have been inadvertent, further edits to this article or participation in the dispute may constitute a violation of your IBAN. I will advise the other party that they may continue to edit the article. – bradv🍁 14:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

My typo

Hiya VM! I corrected a typo I made in case you wanted to correct your quote of my comment that you highlighted in that pretty green color. [7].--MONGO (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks for your quick edit of a few days ago. It is so discouraging to work so hard on an edit only to have it deleted within seconds with little to no rational. I spent several hours reading many articles and trying to present something for our article, deleting almost everything I had initially written as I honed it down to just a few words. So you can imagine how uplifting it was to see one of my fellow editors return my copy, opening it for further discussion - which in this case did not happen and my addition still stands. Again, thanks so much. Gandydancer (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, I guess, but I'm not sure what it is exactly you're referring to. And yes, I know the feeling. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It was the Trump article. You know, in the past I have criticized you for what seemed to me to be too-quick responses, and I still agree with my impressions. However, on the other hand a quick response is sometimes the way to go and I have seen you do that as well - as was the case when I rewrote the environmental section. At any rate, it saved me a lot of anguish and I mean that word, anguish, exactly. My wording in my edits does not come easily to me and I am well aware that the Trump article has around 30,000 hits a day (though I doubt that very many readers get as far as the environmental issues ), and what I write is important enough to make me feel a little "nervous" about my edits. Gandydancer (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
2. Icewhiz is topic-banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland. This topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed.
3. Volunteer Marek is topic-banned from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland. This topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed.
4. The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action.
5. The committee acknowledges the lengthy delay in preparing the proposed decision for this case. We apologize to the case participants and to other editors interested in the topic area, and thank them for their patience.

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland closed

Please, consider your edit

Hello. I'd like to ask you that, please, consider your edit on the article «Tucker Carlson». The edit which you reverted the article to was a modification that a) changed a section name without justification, b) rephrased the text to less precise language, c) used a swearwords unnecessarily, d) eliminated relevant sources and e) submitted all those changes without discussion involved in the talk page of the article. Probably Twinkle detected my edit attempting to fix the issue because the user that introduced the aforementioned changes did it through several edits. Ajñavidya (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	A Resilient Barnstar
	I’m very sorry to see the harassment you have faced. Stay strong Volunteer Marek! starship.paint (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

IBAN violation

In this edit, you make reference to an editor who you have an active IBAN with. WP:IBAN states: "Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to [...] make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly". Your reference to "the editor who just got indef blocked for doxxing and harassing others on twitter" and "ONE OF YOU" was, in context, clearly intended to refer to the editor with whom the Arbitration Committee interaction-banned you from less than two weeks ago. I would strongly advise against you continuing to contribute at the ACN thread. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Unreferenced

Can you add a reference to Elżbieta Szemplińska? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Too close to WW2. Volunteer Marek 06:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

TBAN violation

Hey VM. I thought this was a clear violation of your TBAN. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@L235: Really? How so? It's about the interwar period in Poland, not about WW2. I am not banned from "Poland". And the topic ban is not even "broadly construed". Volunteer Marek 17:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

For your information, all topic bans are "broadly construed" unless clearly and unambiguously otherwise stated; see WP:TBAN. I don't have the time I need today to do the research or take any kind of administrative action in this matter, so I won't be doing anything further. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I was not aware of that part of policy, but regardless there's still the matter that my comment was about INTERWAR Poland, not Poland during WW2. Volunteer Marek 17:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

(also this part of the policy - that all topic bans are automatically "broadly construed" - was added to the policy fairly recently [8] in April. How the chicken fingers am I suppose to know that? It looks like even the people who watch that page closely didn't notice the change until August [[9]]) Volunteer Marek 17:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

L235/Kevin - Per the ArbCom decision documented by Cthomas3, this user has already violated both his IBAN and TBAN at least once since the restrictions were first imposed, yet you state that you "don't have the time" to take the action required of sysops outlined in WP:BLOCK, after encountering a user who is disrupting and damaging the project with willful violations of the ArbCom decision. Yet, you somehow made sure to find the time to perform four blocks in the past week. He also violated his TBAN on Levivich's talk page, which Vermont, SashiRolls, and François Robere pointed out. Sir Joseph was recently blocked for one month after his first TBAN violation. Volunteer Marek has undergone a scattering of blocks (seven in total) in escalating duration throughout his WP editing career, resulting in zero behavioral changes, and has the distinction of being one of the chief architects of one of the most infamous and wide-reaching attacks on Wikipedia. Yet you, L235, an administrator on the English Wikipedia, could not find the time "today" to protect the project from further damage at the hands of Volunteer Marek.

Do you believe that you perhaps owe the community an explanation as to why you couldn't find the time tomorrow (or another day in the near future) or to ping an administrator who does have the time to carry out his/her duties? If not, why not? Additionally, VM used ignorance as an excuse for damaging the project, stating he was “not aware” of the specifics of his TBAN. Do you consider ignorance of the rules to be a valid excuse for disrupting the English Wikipedia? 2600:1012:B063:668D:CD2F:B68:7C35:8CC0 (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)