User talk:Zaostao

Please read WP:CYCLE

WP:CYCLE, or The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) - You made a bold edit. It has been reverted. (Multiple times now) The next step is to discuss - NOT to continually edit war and revert to your version before a discussion is concluded. What you've been doing is wrong. I'm going to revert to the last accepted version of Jared Taylor now. Consider this a warning to not revert it again before the discussion on the talk page is concluded. If you insist on continuing your edit warring, I'll make every effort to make sure you're blocked again by an admin. I'm all for assuming good faith but you've betrayed that assumption a dozen times; frankly, I don't think you're trying to make the article better, and I believe you are attempting to paint Jared Taylor in a more sympathetic light by removing and/or burying the term "white nationalist" in his article. Rockypedia (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You're taking this all very personally. I'm just trying to write an article based on reliable sources instead of personal opinions and feelings. I've also not once removed or tried to bury the white nationalism tag, so maybe you can give an example of me trying to do so? Zaostao (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Right here. Rockypedia (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I still see white nationalism in both versions there, maybe you've misread? You know someone who advocates white nationalism is a white nationalist and vice versa? Zaostao (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I see you've chosen to ignore the fact that you erased "white nationalist" and then later in the sentence described him as a "proponent of white nationalism". Not at all the same thing, you know that, and your attempts to make Taylor more sympathetic will be reverted as non-NPOV. Good day, sir. Rockypedia (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The question I asked was "not once removed or tried to bury the white nationalism tag, so maybe you can give an example of me trying to do so?", you have not given me an example.

Also, "'white nationalist' and then later in the sentence described him as a #proponent of white nationalism'. Not at all the same thing", they actually are exactly the same thing. For example, a communist is someone who is a proponent of communism, a fascist is someone who is a proponent of fascism, a white nationalist is someone who is a proponent of white nationalism. As I said, you seem to be taking this all very personally. Zaostao (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If they're exactly the same thing - then why did you change it? Rockypedia (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

To match with the advocate of "race realism" line, I then changed that to "race realist" to go in line with white nationalist description. Zaostao (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Educate yourself

My user page, which is temporarily relocated here, has said since (at least) 2010 that I have nothing to do with Malik Zulu Shabazz (whose biography I wrote, by the way). Please read WP:No personal attacks. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

My fault, I thought the Malik Shabazz who wrote the Malik Shabazz article had something to do with Malik Shabazz. It's interesting that the Malik Zulu Shabazz article does not mention groups such as the ADL and SPLC calling him an antisemite when an editor who is fond of term "jewboy" wrote it though. Anyway, thanks for educating me. Zaostao (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't read, eh? The Anti-Defamation League describes Shabazz as "anti-Semitic and racist" and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)'s Intelligence Project's Intelligence Report, which monitors what the SPLC considers radical right hate groups and extremists in the United States has included Shabazz in its files since a 2002 Washington, D.C. protest at B'nai B'rith International at which Shabazz shouted: "Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets!"

When I wrote the article, he was described as an antisemite and racist in the first paragraph, but another editor said that violated WP:BLP. Go figure. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you using "can't read" in a disparaging way? If so, i'd ask you to refrain as I don't appreciate ableism on my talkpage. Zaostao (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Estonian wine for you!

	Estonian wine for you!
	Thanks. I consider myself as someone with a wide but shallow knowledge, yet I never knew that the Baltic states were special cases in that they were not externally recognised as consenting members of the USSR. You seem an interesting guy who can bring a bit of colour to this website. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump lede

"why was the "opposition to trade agreements" outlying when renogiation of us-chinese trade is 'part of his platform'". I can answer, since I'm the editor who put it there... As explained in thread Talk:Donald Trump#Term 'terrorist countries', I hesitated describing something as "platform" not found under 'Positions' at the Trump campaign website. (Why? To me at least, "platform" conveys "position paper" or something more documented that simply ideas/suggestions/values/motivations stated at rallies or given in speeches [e.g. the temporary ban on immigration from territories compromised by terrorism, Trump has said wasn't a "proposal", rather "suggestion"].) IMO it's probably inherently misleading to use "platform" for those things he doesn't document on the campaign website as 'Position'. (That was my rationale; I felt "platform" used as synonym for what might be simply idea/suggestion/value/motivation would be inaccurate and misleading and also WP:SYNTH. [Of course, the outlying could have been located *after* the "platform" items instead of before them, perhaps that would have lowered the feeling of mislocation, but I'm not sure that would have been better.]) IHTS (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: Thanks for the detailed response, that's a good rationale. It just read to me that its outlying position along with the "he regards as unfair" bit was to prod Trump for not being a free trader/being a crude protectionist. I agree with you that his "platform" should be listed as what he states as his positions on his website, and that other platform related but not specified on his website should be used with less concrete wording such as, as you mention, suggest. Zaostao (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not following you, what does "to prod Trump" mean, and how was the outlying position doing that? You agree "platform" s/b restricted to items on his website, but here you relocated "unfair trade agreements" text after descriptor "platforms". (What am I missing?) IHTS (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: I was saying I agree with that suggestion now having heard your rationale. I did not know of your reasoning for placing the unfair trade agreements line outside the platform bit before I made the edit. Admittedly, having re-read it, my last reply does not accurately convey what I was trying to say but i'm going to blame that on the fact that I had just woken up. Anyway, again, thanks for the detailed response. Zaostao (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thx for that. And I'm leaning to not disturb your change, because 1) you're not the first editor to relocate the outlying material as you did, and 2) any "fix" I can think of is worse than the disease. Glad we talked here. Ok, IHTS (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016 Jared Taylor

Your attempt to make an already-discussed change against consensus followed by a subsequent minor edit to punctuation looks like you're trying to sneak an edit through that you know isn't acceptable. I hope that wasn't the case. If it was, you can rest assured that it was a laughable attempt at subterfuge. If it wasn't, the first edit was still against consensus. Either way, you're getting close to a WP:ANI. I would advise you to stop. Rockypedia (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"sneak through"? My question hasn't been answered on the talk page for over a week now so I made a bold edit in hopes that someone might answer it. Editor consensus does not supersede NPOV. Zaostao (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Your statement "Editor consensus does not supersede NPOV" is a classic straw man. The consensus reached was that the version currently up (before you attempted yet another change) was NPOV. It was your opinion that it was not NPOV; however, you're the only one that held this opinion, and you keep trying circular arguments to keep the discussion going after consensus was reached. You were advised to take it to an RfC if you still wanted the lead changed. I posit that the reason you haven't done so is that you know you're wrong, and an RfC would only confirm this, so you resorted to waiting a week to see if anyone would notice you sneaking (yes, sneaking) past the change again. I'm done here as well; if you make the change again, I will revert it. If you violate 3RR, I will make sure you are blocked for doing so. I've said all there is to say and I won't respond again unless you raise the issue at an RfC. Good day. Rockypedia (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's actually stated very explicitly on the WP:NPOV page. I'm not trying to force my opinion, because that would be OR, i'm trying to represent sources such as The Wall Street Journal who think his status as an author is notable enough to call him so. I disagree with the "sneaking" verbiage, if you look at my contribution history, strafing edits are very common. Anyway, I'll ask you here since you don't want to answer it on the talk page, what authority do you have to say that he's only notable for being a white nationalist when RS disagree? Zaostao (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Jared Taylor

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Zaostao reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I'd argue that the reverting editors sidestepped the 3RR rule (I made 3 reverts, they 4) by using WP:TAGTEAM, as all the reverting editors were the same editors who refused to answer my question on talk page. I don't think this is a ridiculous accusation either as if you look to the top of this page, the reporting editor in this dispute stated he'd "make every effort to make sure [I am] blocked by an admin." Zaostao (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"If you insist on continuing your edit warring, I'll make every effort to make sure you're blocked again by an admin." You are now posting an out-of-context quote to make it seem like you were being threatened, when in fact, no one reported you the first 25 times you were making your disruptive edits, and only warned you instead. You didn't heed the warning, and even now, you won't own what you've been doing. I have my doubts that you're here to make positive contributions and work with other editors peacefully. I hope you can prove me wrong. But I'm not holding my breath. Rockypedia (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm here to improve the encyclopedia and challenge ideologues tainting it. Zaostao (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ref style

Edits like this have misleading edit summaries, because you are making multiple changes while only mentioning one. Those additional formatting changes make it much harder to see the content changes you've made. There's nothing wrong with having list-defined references in the template, and they are useful for articles like alt-right which have many repeated sources. At least stop altering them as part of the same edit as other changes, please. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Yeah, I didn't understand your reversion reason as my edit added new refs, it didn't reformat preexisting refs so I did "restore" the refs I mentioned. Genuinely not trying to be combative or annoying here by the way, so apologies if it seems that way. Zaostao (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, cool, it just makes the diffs harder to read. If you're using visual editor, I don't know what's going on. If you're not, making incremental changes solves the problem. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edmund Kemper

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Edmund Kemper you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edmund Kemper

The article Edmund Kemper you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Edmund Kemper for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your edits

Zaostao, please send me an email please which is [my name here] at yahoo.com . Cheers! Meishern (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

I see you're still hard at work trying to eliminate all phrases from the Jared Taylor article that you believe cast him in a negative light. I will remind you again that the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, via reliable secondary sources, not to polish the pages of a biography to make the subject seem more acceptable. Eliminating all mentions of "white supremacist", "white nationalism", etc. is directly contrary to the former, and if you continue to edit war over it, you'll be blocked, again, the same as last time. Rockypedia (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:COATRACK. Zaostao (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're already aware, WP:COATRACK applies to articles that "ostensibly discuss its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." As Jared Taylor clearly does discuss Jared Taylor, and does not focus on American Renaissance, the attempted use of COATRACK isn't even close to applicable. Continue your discussion of this on the Taylor talk page, if you wish, but you're clearly in the wrong here. Rockypedia (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

See the last line of the lede on WP:COATRACK. Zaostao (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edmund Kemper

The article Edmund Kemper you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edmund Kemper for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply

There are multiple academic sources on the subject, such as this. Using them for sourcing would not be a policy violation. Note however, that I only mentioned them in one discussion long time ago, and did not use them in any articles so far. So, bringing this back in irrelevant discussions, as you do [1], is a little bit strange.My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this another joke about wikipedia policy or am I supposed to take this comment seriously? Zaostao (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I am telling this seriously. The totalitarian system currently built in Russia is a subject noted in a large number of publications. Now, speaking about the nickname of the leader (this is a different subject), I do not really know if such an article would survive AfD, but there are numerous publications about this too - in books ([2],[3],[4], [5] and a lot more), so, if anyone wanted, the creation of such page would be a legitimate business. I simply do not have time for this. My very best wishes (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

So it clearly wasn't a "joke" and you do actually believe Putin is like Hitler, and that he "does not deserve a decent BLP page." That's good to know. Zaostao (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, I think he deserved a decent BLP page, of course. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

So it was a joke? Okay, then is this also a joke? I'm sorry if i'm being obtuse, I guess it's just a bit difficult to discern whether you think wikipedia policies should be respected or not when you joke about them so much. Zaostao (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Independent State of Croatia

I rv your last edits to the lede. I have no problems trimming it but this is a touchy topic and you need to explain such a heavy load of deletions. Anything factually incorrect in the lede should, of course, be removed, but you need to be more specific. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I went at it with a hatchet as the lede was in terrible shape. The whole article ideally needs a rewrite and BOLD edits are usually the most effective for articles like this. I'll discuss the changes on the talk page if you want, but the lede is absolutely terrible at the moment: incoherent, not chronological, incomplete and repeats some information. Zaostao (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Pepe the Frog removal of my contribution

My contribution to the Pepe-the-Frog page, which you removed without any explanation, was supported by TWO reliable sources (VANITY FAIR, WASHINGTON POST). It is not your place to decide for yourself whether the contribution is right or wrong. That's not how Wiki works. At Wiki we post WHATEVER THE RELIABLE SOURCES SAY, not what we personally think. You're only allowed to remove my contribution EITHER if you think that the sources are not reliable (which would be silly--OF COURSE VF and WP are reliable sources) OR if you think the source articles did not say what I said they said (which anyone who can read can see they do say), OR if you think the contribution does not qualify as a "notable use" (which would also be silly--of course the appropriation of the meme by white-supremacists and David Duke is notable).

Also, if you're going to revert an edit, you must explain why you do so, on the TALK page. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on Alt-right warning

You appear to be slowly edit warring on Alt-right in the lead. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop leaving messages on my talk page accusing me of edit warring. Zaostao (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, people would be less concerned with you edit warring if you weren't edit warring. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Zaostao, we are generally required to leave warnings before requesting admin intervention. It's somewhere between a courtesy and a requirement. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Warning for what? Clearly not edit warring. Please let go of the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Zaostao (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I linked the diffs on Talk:Alt-right. You've made the same change 5 times in the past week. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you and other editors have reinstated challenged material without discussing any of it on the talk page, are you bragging about this? If so, please let go of the battleground stance, it's very petty. Zaostao (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Bashar al-Assad

Hello,

First, let me say that as a German I take utter offence at the picture on your user page, which seems to idolize the most despicable and utterly disgusting period of my country's history. It is no surprise to me that it is accompanied by reference to the music of Wagner, which I personally find obscene, disgusting and simplistic.

Then you removed the fact that the 2000 election (in which Assad became president) had exactly one candidate from the lead paragraph of the article. You even called that material, I quote, "undue" in your edit summary. This is destructive, since the lead paragraph of an article shall describe its subject to give an impression that is as accurate as possible. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

What are you alluding to? If you're trying to imply that I am a Nazi, that is a clear personal attack and I am gravely offended. It's also a fallacious guilt by association: the Nazis supported universal healthcare, does that mean single-payer healthcare is Nazi ideology?

Commenting on the content, not the contributor though, the first paragraph is for information integral to the subject's notability. In my edit, there's still clearly information that "Assad received a near totality of the votes in uncontested elections where other candidates were not permitted to run against him," and if you look at the rest of my changes, I clearly removed actual sympathy towards Assad. I hope you withdraw these bad-faith accusations towards me and self-revert. Zaostao (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I will reinstate your removal of sympathy towards Assad. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, the software did not even remove that. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I was asking you to revert your change which re-added the non-integral information to the first paragraph of the lede. See Ronald Reagan or some other FA quality article as an example. Zaostao (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathmensch (talk • contribs) 10:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Added a header to this notification for clarity. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Zaostao, please remove the statue image and the bible verse from your userpage. As explained here, they are highly offensive, especially taken together. Bishonen | talk 13:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC).
  • Don't bother, I've blocked you indefinitely and deleted your user page. You've been blocked before, you know how to request an unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Zaostao (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

What exactly was I blocked for? For having an picture of an Arno Breker work and a Richard Wagner userbox on my user page? I didn't even get a chance to participate in the ANI. I'd like to be unblocked as I don't see what I've done wrong or how I've hurt the project in any way. Zaostao (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=What exactly was I blocked for? For having an picture of an Arno Breker work and a Richard Wagner userbox on my user page? I didn't even get a chance to participate in the ANI. I'd like to be unblocked as I don't see what I've done wrong or how I've hurt the project in any way. [[User:Zaostao|Zaostao]] ([[User talk:Zaostao#top|talk]]) 17:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=What exactly was I blocked for? For having an picture of an Arno Breker work and a Richard Wagner userbox on my user page? I didn't even get a chance to participate in the ANI. I'd like to be unblocked as I don't see what I've done wrong or how I've hurt the project in any way. [[User:Zaostao|Zaostao]] ([[User talk:Zaostao#top|talk]]) 17:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=What exactly was I blocked for? For having an picture of an Arno Breker work and a Richard Wagner userbox on my user page? I didn't even get a chance to participate in the ANI. I'd like to be unblocked as I don't see what I've done wrong or how I've hurt the project in any way. [[User:Zaostao|Zaostao]] ([[User talk:Zaostao#top|talk]]) 17:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}