User talk: Diannaa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 16:36, 19 August 2023 (→‎Matthew Goodwin: typos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  ·

Help again needed at CopyPatrol

Hello copyright patrollers, we currently have 84 reports at CopyPatrol that need to be assessed. Assistance would be much appreciated! I am getting overwhelmed! Pinging some recent contributors as shown on the Leaderboard: DanCherek, Ymblanter, 1AmNobody24, L3X1, SamX, Isochrone, Moneytrees, L3X1 and Sphilbrick. Any assistance you can offer would be perfect, even if you only have time to do a handful of cases. Thanks in advance, — Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done more today than I would normally do, and I will be around until the end of the next week, but then I am going to be on holidays for two weeks. Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did 30 this morning, but it took 3 hours. There seems to have been a lot more of the complex cases the last few days. — Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin Theatre

Hi Diannaa, I hope you're well, Back in 2020 you had removed/revdelled copyrighted stuff from Chopin Theatre and had warned Alexiad11, They've today returned adding what I believe to be copyrighted stuff again,

When you have a spare 5-10 mins could you kindly check Chopin Theatre please ? (I've reverted them but it's still in the history), Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 13:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, You're a star!, Thanks so much I greatly appreciate your help, Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 14:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I apologize for just picking you, but I've seen you around AN(/I) when these sort of things come up. if there's a preferred place, please point : )

I don't know what I don't know, but I'm hoping that this makes more sense to you : )

copying text from the fandom wikis, or anywhere else on the web, I presume is not allowed without some sort of attribution?

So I'm concerned that this person's edit history may need to be gone over.

If I'm missing something in this please don't be shy to edumacate me : ) - jc37 00:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this is pretty basic, but there's a lot of talk page watchers here, so please excuse the detailed answer if you already know some of this or it seems a bit off-topic for your question.
  • It's okay to add compatibly licensed material to Wikipedia as long as you provide the required attribution.
  • Here is as list of compatible licenses.
  • Attribution can be done inline or by adding a blurb at the bottom of the page in the references section. I prefer inline because it's then clear exactly which content in the article is copied.
  • We have various templates that can be used for attribution; {{PD-notice}}, {{CC-notice}}, {{US government sources}} are a few common ones. It can also be done manually by creating some copypasta in a sandbox and using that. I am currently more a fan of the templates.
  • We get a lot of cases at CopyPatrol that are where the editor has copied from Fandom. Fandom is compatibly licensed, but I mostly remove it rather than taking the trouble to add the required attribution, because Fandom is typically unsourced fanboy/fangirl material, and also, it's a wiki and not a particularly reliable source for that reason.
  • If someone is chronically adding stuff from Fandom (or from copyright websites for that matter) they would likely be showing up frequently at CopyPatrol. I recall that person's name and see a couple posts re attribution on their talk page but there's been nothing recently.
Diannaa (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, and great.
Thank you very much : )
Then I won't worry about looking further into it.
I appreciate all the information.
Thanks again : ) - jc37 01:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you wrote above should be added here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright. What do you think? (and please - if that page needs updating/overhauling - please do, or if you prefer, point me to it and I'll try : ) - jc37 01:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overhauling and updating that page is a good idea; sorry but I don't have time to help. Adding some material about Fandom is a good idea. A summary of points you could include: (Go ahead and copy/adapt this if you like. [attribution is required] )
  • Fandom is compatibly licensed, and it's okay to copy from there as long as the required attribution is provided. Unattributed copying is often removed by patrollers rather than repaired. (Offer links as to how to add the required attribution)
  • Occasionally content present on Fandom is also present in old revisions of Wikipedia articles. It takes a bit of digging to discover whether or not this is the case. Such content was typically removed for good reasons (unsourced fancruft, for example) so think carefully before re-adding it. Is it encyclopedic, or in-universe fancruft?
  • Because Fandom is typically loaded with unsourced fanboy/fangirl material, and because it's a wiki, it's not a reliable source. So again, it's usually not suitable for Wikipedia, which strives to be a more serious encyclopedia.
Diannaa (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

French documentaries on public broadcasting

Hi there, how are you? I am working on beefing up the references on a couple of translated articles. I have a couple of well-produced documentaries that don't say they are Creative Commons so I presume they are not. One was broadcast on Radio-France but according to Copyright law of France France does not make the same exception the US does for works produced by the government. So obviously I am not going to upload them, and the documentation at Template: cite AV media seems to say that I should not link to them on YouTube either, since French copyright probably has not expired. Is it ok however to cite them by timestamp without linking to them? I am thinking that this is akin to citing a page number in a copyrighted book, but.out of an abundance of caution I thought I should probably run this past you. If you can shed any light when you get a chance I would appreciate it; meanwhile I will refrain from linking the Radio-France episode and verify that the other documentary isn't linked either. Thank you for any brainpower that you apply to this problem. Elinruby (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Films and videos are typically copyright but it's still okay to use them as a source of information just like you would a book or magazine that's not available online. But don't link to it on YouTube unless the copyright holder is the uploader.
Occasionally a video on YouTube is compatibly licensed, but usually not. The standard YouTube license is not a compatible license. If it's released under a CC-license it will say so in the video description. But there's license laundering taking place there, same as at Flickr, so make sure it's actually uploaded by the copyright holder and not faked. Commons:License launderingDiannaa (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing back a deleted page

Hi @Diannaa,

I wanted to ask if you can bring back a deleted page for me. I wanted to make a new ambassador article for Michael S. Owen, but that page got deleted because of copyright infringement. If it's possible, can that page be brought back? I'll fix the copyright issue and whatnot and just make a standard article. Please let me know. Thanks in advance for your response. Losipov (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you will have to start over. We can't host copyright material on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. In both instances where it was deleted, all the content was copied from http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/ambassador-to-sierra-leone-who-is-michael-owen?news=842208, so you could potentially use that as your starting point. — Diannaa (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I just don't want it to be flagged for speedy deletion once it's published because that's what it was in the past. But nevertheless, thanks for the reply! Losipov (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse copyvio?

Hi Diannaa! I'm hoping you can assist with a murky possible reverse copyvio situation. I came across a G12 request at Bayanni (singer), referring to two sources where content was evidently lifted from (copyvios report), specifically the naijabiography.com and cityceleb.com matches; these are both user-submitted content websites but don't appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. On investigation I found that there is a deleted version of this article at Bayanni (Zhenoboy), and that that was originally posted almost at the same time as both of those sources (as far as I can tell from archive.org), and they are all similar. The problem is I can't tell for sure which was actually posted first, and so I can't determine for sure if this is a copyvio, and I'm not quite sure what to do about it. Any advice you have would be appreciated! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a version at Bayanni created on October 3, 2022 which cites Naijabiography as a source. Bayanni was deleted at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayanni).
Bayanni (Zhenoboy) was created August 25, 2022, and cited thecityceleb.com as a source, and was deleted as being copyvio from that source, as well as G7 and G11. You have to wonder what is going on when an article arrives in its first edit at 11,054 bytes and has at least two iterations that we've found so far. It may have been a copy of an even earlier version under yet another title. It doesn't smell like Teen Spirit, it smells more like persistent undisclosed paid editing.
Since we can't conclusively prove copyvio, I think maybe it should go to AFD. I have no experience at AFD so I would appreciate it if you could initiate that, assuming you agree that that is a good course of action. — Diannaa (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good find! Seems like it's just straight-up spam, then. I think you're right about AfD, I'll nominate it shortly. Thanks for your help! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD2 Deletion Request (Libel)

Hi, I reverted some libelous edits on Talk:A. V. Rockwell. Another editor already warned the user, can you assist in deleting the original edits? Nyeboah (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done. — Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Richard Sansoni as leader of AMT VIII

Here you can find evidence that he was in charge of this office. There are pages from his SS folder that is physically kept in US archive. I have complete scan from this folder as I have his military awards and photos after his son. First file, left side "Amtschef Amt VIII". It is clearly visible. Second page is first page of that document. Please, contact me if you have further questions.

<a href="https://ibb.co/bWVPT2m"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/6nSmz1w/20230806-112311.jpg" alt="20230806-112311" border="0"></a> <a href="https://ibb.co/tKy4Q3v"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/V9XtJ3z/20230806-112238.jpg" alt="20230806-112238" border="0"></a> 2A02:8308:282:CF00:683C:C465:1A60:F68 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well those documents are all pretty illegible and I don't speak German so that's not much use. But this page mentions him. — Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Trenfo" copyright content

Hi @Diannaa and thank you for the welcome. The text I added on the History of the Incas article came from the Spanish wikipedia: Guerra civil incaica, including the references. All I did was translate a few initial paragraphs and change some words for a better understanding in English.

I revised the website you provided: https://www.trenfo.com/en/history/inca-civil-wa, and it seems like that's just a direct translation of all of the Spanish article, excluding the references and notes. The article on "Trenfo" was made on March 6, 2022, while the edit for the Wikipedia text I took, comes from as early as August 23, 2011. https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guerra_civil_incaica&oldid=49179812 If I had "copied" the text from that website, I would have at least referenced it.

Is there a possibility to undo the change you made, or am I still in the wrong here? Killari Wanka (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you copy or translate licensed text such as from another-language Wikipedia, you need to provide attribution. This is done by saying in at least one of your edit summaries where you got the content from. This helps prevent patrollers from making this kind of mistake, and also, it's required by the terms of our license. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Copying from other Wikimedia projects. Here is a sample edit summary. There's also a template that you should place on the article's talk page if the translating is extensive. I have done that too. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong darn tag. Sorry about that. Knitsey (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move cedar mining into my sandbox?

Good morning. I screwed up, and could stand some admin help. I had started collecting notes for an article on Cedar mining in mainspace while thinking it was in my sandbox. It's definitely not ready for prime time. Happy to put it up for deletion, or if possible, could you move it into my sandbox?

Mortified,

12:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC) Elizabeth Shiprock (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found the CSD template. Hopefully that fixes things. Elizabeth Shiprock (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quotations are okay in your sandbox; excessive quotation in mainspace is not okay. I have moved it to User:Elizabeth Shiprock/Cedar miningDiannaa (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Thanks for the help. Elizabeth Shiprock (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David D. Stern

Good morning,

Am mortified that the first part of the entry David D. Stern - or is it the whole entry? - is marked for copyright violation - just wanted to update the entry, and remove non active links. The texts of the website https://www.davidsternstudio.com (including CV) are free to use. The author sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

Can you prevent the deletion of the page, please? And approve the updated content? What can I do??? Thanks!!!

Diannaa (talk)Rastern (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Rastern The website has © 2023 David Stern / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York on the bottom, which means it's not free to use. Also, just because part of the text might get deleted, it doesn't mean the article will too. Nobody (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! the CV page of the website gives permission to use the text: https://www.davidsternstudio.com/cv Rastern (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once the permission email has been checked by the Volunteer Response Team, the content can be restored. — Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just came across Jason Boyarski on the recent changes page and I see there was a lot of content added with repeated irrelevant citations. I am not sure if it needs rollback or manual removal of only the repeated references! Can you please take a look? Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used Refill 2 to quickly combine the duplicate citations. Now checking for copyvio — Diannaa (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in need of a good copy edit and cleanup but a couple problems are now fixed. — Diannaa (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Also is there a page/article where I can read about refill 2 and how to use it? Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a page at Wikipedia:reFill. Note we have two versions: https://refill.toolforge.org/ and https://refill.toolforge.org/ng/. Choose the one you prefer — Diannaa (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help Jeraxmoira (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turnitin down for scheduled maintenance

CopyPatrollers please note: our Turnitin service is down for scheduled maintenance. Scheduled to end at 22:00 UTC. We will be unable to view iThenticate reports during this time, and CopyPatrol will not add any new listings either until the maintenance is complete.
https://turnitin.statuspage.io/Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin

Hi, it is regarding removal of sourced content and addition of unsourced but possible COPYVIO [2]. This user had previously added the same content you revdel-ed here and warmed (welcome)'. Please see. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a match for the material I previously removed, and I can't find it anywhere online using a Google search. — Diannaa (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tobyjamesaus

I recently reverted an edit by Tobyjamesaus that introduced close paraphrasing from this Sydney Morning Herald article. I noticed that you'd recently given them a final warning for copyright violations, so I figured I should notify you instead of warning them myself. SamX [talk · contribs] 03:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably I have blocked the user and recommended the opening of an investigation at WP:CCI. — Diannaa (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Copyvio at Mahesh Navami

Hello Diannaa, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a high probability of copyright content added to the Mahesh Navami article in 2023‎. Regards. Woodlot (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

CA High-Speed Rail

You removed some text in this article saying it was plagiarized. In fact, I am the original author of that material. In the article I note a 105 page Authority document re train specifications. This is no longer on line, however, when it was I read the article and composed this list of specifications. Over a year ago (I'm not certain of the timeline) I had this in the main article, but deleted it and moved it to a sandbox for eventual inclusion into a new sub-article re Trains of CAHSR. I decided to re-introduce it into the main article until the Trains sub-article is online. Therefore I am undoing your deletion. Robert92107 (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, on page 3 of the article you cite in a footnote it says the following information is from the Wikipedia CAHSR article. The copied text (including going into the next section and incorporating the trains specifications list) was copied from the Wiki article as it was at that time. It has since been revised so it is not easily recognizable. Robert92107 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked an old revision dated prior to the July 2021 date of the matching document, and the list was present on Wikipedi at that time. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible error in copyright removal

Hi there, I'm a bit new so I'm not sure if you receive notifications to the replies I made to you on my talk page, regarding the copyright removal at Economic diplomacy, a removal which I believe to be in error. I have detailed the reasons on my talk page in the relevant thread. I'd like to request that the text be reinstated, as the cited copyright owner seemingly took the text from the book's Wikipedia page rather than writing it themselves. The text appears to originate from Confessions of an Economic Hit Man originally. I apologise if you already received notifications and this post was superfluous. Still learning how the system works. Thanks for your time! ShabbyHoose (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. You did ping me, and I am also watching your talk page, so I was aware of your message as soon as I resumed editing. If someone doesn't reply immediately sometimes it means they were at the gym or cooking supper or the like. — Diannaa (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Copyright concerns

My contributions to the article Raghoji I of Nagpur have been marked as copyright plagiarism, referring to this spam-bot compiled Blog:

http://ve65.blogspot.com/2015/02/14th-february-1755-raguji-bhosale-of.html, which is itself accumulating matter from Indian Government-issued Gazetteers that are for Public reference. There is no copyright over the content I have published, nor is any of it owned by this author : https://www.blogger.com/profile/16569700971043615645 with regards to any of the content.

This author has lifted material from Maharashtra State Gazeteers which was directly referred to for chronological and finetuned details. Here is the cached page of the same Bhandara region.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xMd55WVB2j0J:https://cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/BHANDARA/his_maratha%2520period.html&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in

One can refer to the published links here: https://gazetteers.maharashtra.gov.in/cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/History%20Part/History_III/chapter_7.pdf https://gazetteers.maharashtra.gov.in/cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/Nagpur/his1.html

This is not copyrighted content in any way, shape or form. Requesting @Diannaa to restore the material for me to revise if needed but please take quick action.DeccanFlood (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual for content to be reproduced in several locations online. I was pretty sure it was from the gazeteer; that'w why I said "or elsewhere" in my edit summary.
Sorry but in India, government works are copyright for 60 years from publication date. So Wikipedia can't publish text copied from there. — Diannaa (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But with regards to the matter laid out, the content presented has to be precisely sourced, the list of cities for which the Sanads/Deeds are granted for example. The battle descriptions and other finer details are clearly tweaked and originally put forward. In order to avoid excessive emotional engagement in the narrative, the language of the source text was maintained. If needed I can compose the wording from scratch entirely. I do fail to see how factual historical narratives are subjected to copy-right when we have to extract content from reputed sources as per the guidelines. Most Historians' narratives of the events would provide the same perspective on the matter. We could have had other admins have the content formatted to new original matter instead of the copyright red-tape. Please guide on the new direction I ought to take with my contributions. Do I proceed with reversion of your tag and edit the content in question to form new presentation entirely? DeccanFlood (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In order to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy, all content you add must be written in your own words. This is an official Wikipedia policy with legal implications, not just red tape. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the content which has been removed was written in original words. The words certainly bore familiarity to the source matter despite best efforts, however I will still attempt it again. On submitting another attempted narration, would there be any administrator available who would automatically receive note of the changes to restore the page or do I have to tag your id? DeccanFlood (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you could follow the instructions already in place on your talk page that would be perfect. — Diannaa (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you help me to understand why you removed all the material on the reception of Goodwin's books? If it helps, I've asked at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Matthew Goodwin again 148.252.128.42 (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the article was book reviews: Of the article's 2369 words, 1424 of them (60 percent) were book reviews. We don't normally include book reviews at all in the article about the author. We might include a few short excerpts from reviews in an article about the book, if we have one. We also have rules about excessive non-free content. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information on this topic. — Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was best to let the sources speak but I can reduce the use of quotes. But why wouldn't we include the critical reception of an author's work? Especially when the sources pass comment on the author's politics, not just the content of the work. And if this sort of content isn't allowed then what is J. K. Rowling#Reception? 148.252.132.217 (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
J. K. Rowling#Reception contains almost no quotations; it it a summary and analysis of what reliable sources have said about her work. — Diannaa (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So can those reliable sources include reviews? 148.252.132.217 (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In J. K. Rowling#Works cited, you will see scholarly resources and literary analysis such as Reading Harry Potter: Critical Essays, Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter (2nd ed.), and "Blending genres and crossing audiences: and the future of literary fiction". Have you got anything like that? — Diannaa (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very few academics would be subject of such books. But some of the reviews are published in scholarly journals. The others are in reputable national newspapers and magazines. 148.252.132.217 (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP 148, besides the issues Diannaa has already mentioned, the bigger problem I still see at Matthew Goodwin is one of WP:NOTWEBHOST. The article reads like a personal website rather than an encyclopedic entry. The structure and content at J. K. Rowling can be a guide to you for how to write more encyclopedic content, independently of whether the author is covered as thoroughly as Rowling is. More simply stated, Rowling is encyclopedic, and in its current state, Goodwin looks like WP:PROMOTION, even after Diannaa's cleanup.
Separately, you've written 20% of the page as an IP, so it's hard to know where to call your attention to WP:COI, so I'm adding that here in the hopes you are following this page and will be sure to declare any conflicts you may have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kix (UK and Ireland TV channel)

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at Kix (UK and Ireland TV channel)? I'm not sure what was meant by WP:MCQ#Kix, but it appears that an IP reverted you're redirecting of the article to Pop Max. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I am not going to edit war over it. I have added an attribution statement at Kix (UK and Ireland TV channel). — Diannaa (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]