User talk:Apoc2400

• Archive1 (2005 - 2008)
• Archive2 (January - June 2009)
• Archive3 (July - December 2009)
• Archive4 (2010-2017)

Please add messages to me below. --Apoc2400

Hello, Apoc2400. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hong Kong Aids Foundation logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion, specifically about inaccurate page ranges, like "p. 99–", that are being generated by the RefTag tool. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While updating a citation, I noticed an issue with DOI 10.2307/971600 in your RefTag tool - The article was originally published in 1995 in its journal (and your tool correctly picks up the journal, volume, issue, and page numbers), and later published online in 2017. The RefTag tool is erroneously picking up that later online publication year rather than the original print publication year. Verbatim9 (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legion Etrangere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.219.15 (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hope this message will find you well. We talked a couple of times a couple of years ago. About your Reftag tool, it collects Metadata from Google Books, I was just wondering if anyhow it can be used on Wikidata. --Titodutta (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sekisui House Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for this tool first, it's saved me a lot of time, and has simple, neat interface. One feature request I have is, that is automatically loads whenever the url changes. Shushugah (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apoc, Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books is quite helpful for many editors, which saves a lot of time. However, I can see over years the commonly accepted usage across Wikipedia has changed, and also a few other citation styles came into existence. Basically, I'm saying that the tool needs to be upgraded or updated, whatever :) If you're interested to work on this, I would like to discuss more. KCVelaga (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason this isn’t integrated into Wikipedia software by default? It would save many editors the time and also looking for this tool. Is there an older discussion I’m unaware of? Am software dev and interested in helping :) Shushugah (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I use DOI Wikipedia reference generator often, and I like it a lot.

Unfortunately, it generates an ISSN with incorrect syntax—it lacks a hyphen. The error was detected by WPCleaner.

The format of the ISSN is an eight digit code, divided by a hyphen into two four-digit numbers or ISSN.org. The correct format is with the hyphen.

Thanks for creating the DOI Wikipedia reference generator. Comfr (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Apoc2400. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Apoc2400. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enter a google book url, click load. Choose {{cite book}} or {{citation}} formats and the wikitext includes populated |authorn= parameters. Choose 'plain wikicode' format and the author infomation disappears from the wikitext rendering.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refining this: There must be multiple authors so this url works as expected:

https://books.google.com/books?id=TqCNZYXWXAUC&pg=PA17 (link)

but this url does not include the author information:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Yzj62yMyV8YC&pg=PA10 (link)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see that you haven't responded to talk page messages in a while. Are you still maintaining Reftag? I have some suggestions but I can figure something else out if you are no longer working on that project. czar 14:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There appears to be an issue with this tool. If you plug https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=59XvXKbyvZIC into it, you get details for a 920-page e-book edition published in 2011 by Butterworth-Heinemann with ISBN 978-0-08-056009-0, but the GBooks preview at that link is actually for a 902-page print edition published in 2008 by Elsevier with ISBN 978-0-7506-8987-8. The difference in pagination might mess up page numbers in references that cite the book. Factotem (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google books changed their format then I tried plugging a google books URL and get a message that the URL is not a google books URL. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm getting pushback for adding Google Books links to book listings in the Donner Party article, something I've not encountered previously in my experience as a Wikipedian. Do you know of any justification for rejecting such links? Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WolfmanSF: The Google Books URLs have changed, and it seems that the Google Books citation generator hasn't been updated yet. I tried to generate a citation for this link, but the citation generator won't parse it. Jarble (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Classic Google Books" is still available at least for now. For how long, I'm not sure. It generates this url which still works with the tool. Most of my old links in Turning point of the American Civil War are still good. In "new Google Books" (at this link), you can generate a citation by clicking on the "Create Citation" button under "About this edition". WolfmanSF (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tried these today without any luck:

• https://nyti.ms/29K22zG
• https://www.nytimes.com/1983/08/25/us/vitamin-is-linked-to-nerve-damage.html

They're from an archive, so that might have something to do with it. - Scarpy (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current url not working on Reftag for NYT:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/well/eat/scientist-who-discredited-meat-guidelines-didnt-report-past-food-industry-ties.html

I use your Gbooks reftag app all the time, thanks a lot for that! Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Hypex Electronics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hypex Electronics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not seeing how this passes WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hypex Electronics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypex Electronics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1086/ahr/104.2.586 is generating tag italic in title. i suspect the issue is with upstream. however, i would like to take a look once. thank you Leela52452 (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nemesysco is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemesysco until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vermont (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

where as "citer" is generating cite book with more details.

please excuse for referring other data generator.

thank you talk Leela52452 (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been using your Google Books citation tool for awhile now, but as of today it looks like it may be having a problem. Google Books is not offering me its books in the usual format, and it seems that this is also interfering with your tools ability to generate a citation from the corresponding URL. Check out this one, for example: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dictionary_of_Textiles/ycE2AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=pile. A loose necktie (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher—was waiting for a response about this tool from a while back) If you use the "classic Google Books" URL, the tool continues to work. It doesn't support the new URL format. czar 03:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, is there a trick to getting the google books search result to open in the old URL format? I don't see an obvious way to convert the new to the old, and even when I click "no" to the "try the new google books", each search result I open switches to their new format. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd, how are you arriving at Google Books? In Chrome, I use a search engine shortcut to search https://www.google.com/search?q=%s&tbm=bks (replaces %s with the actual search query) and it still puts me in the old format, which works for now. It's a matter of time before the old version is phased out, though. I still use Apoc's tool occasionally but otherwise I do my citation building/management in WP:Zotero now. czar 23:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, I just go to https://books.google.com/. Search results look the same as before, but opening any of them uses the new interface. I guess I'll just have to get used to it. I might try the Chrome shortcut idea though, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd, also are you logged in? When I visit the main link (like you do), it still opens to the old format. But if I try it when logged out, it defaults to the new format. A thought. czar 00:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I bet that's it! I stay logged out of google just on general principle and it didn't occur to me to try it logged in. Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was, hoping the original tool could be fixed somehow and I could continue using it. Apparently this is not to be the case. I had become quite comfortable with the way the tool worked, and am disappointed that I must now learn a new system (or just stop leaving citations quite as often as I prefer to, which is my other alternative). So be it. A loose necktie (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't working for me anymore either. :/ Example: [1] - Scarpy (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a way to get the old-style links. It may not work for everyone, but when I am on a new Google Books page there is a message at the top that reads, "Welcome to the new Google Books: Check out the new look and features, or go back to classic Google Books". If I click on that link it takes me to the old interface, which yields the same old links that work with this tool. As with all Google redesigns, the "classic" will probably be taken down after a while, so we will need to get the tool fixed sooner or later. Ibadibam (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I just came here to report the same thing, and found this discussion. So, is there any solution ? --Gazal world (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Same here Google books tool not working.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My workaround is to use a saved bookmark to an old (books.google.com style) working Google Books citation generator tool reftag like this one, so you can call it up when necessary. The bookmark will have the old format in the Google Books URL field of the tool: http://books.google.com/books?id=rK8aAQAAIAAJ then just manually replace the "rK8aAQAAIAAJ" tag with the tag from the book you're trying to make a ref for from the URL of the new (www.google.com/books style) Google books format – the "yMorAQAAMAAJ" tag after the book name from the new format: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Fort_Ridgely_State_Park_Management_Plan/yMorAQAAMAAJ and press the "Make Citation" button. Kind of cumbersome, but not too bad. Mojoworker (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gstatic.com. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 24#Gstatic.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Double Coin logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the (great!) Citation Tool seem to have problem with those links - e.g. [2]https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/_/6usVz9ZbdKMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA466 It says "Is not a Google Book URL...." CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is RefTag workable *at all* with the "new and improved" Google Books? I am generally a WP:GNOME and quite often have added RefTag generated g-books links into various articles (too many to count I'm sure). What I've found "works" is to find a location in a book with (now "Classic") g-books, and then turn off JavaScript and go forward and then back one page, which gets the correct page number into the URL. Then I sometimes mess with it to figure out what parameters I can delete from the URL and still not break it. (I've never bothered to systematically figure out how it really works - what/whether there's a difference between the "pg" and "lpg" parameters, whether the "f" parameter actually means anything, etc.)

The "new and improved" Google Books doesn't seem to work at all without Javascript. For now, one can still go to the "classic" interface, but for how long - who knows. I've read that Google seems particularly schizophrenic about supporting old APIs and such that are used by other people. This is ironic considering that was the main argument against Oracle in their recent epic potentially-computing-as-we-know-it-shattering-case that they fortunately won. Or mostly won I think - my understanding is it didn't specifically say APIs were public-domain, just "fair use" which is nebulous. Jimw338 (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still supposed to be available - been getting

Error: Server Error

The server encountered an error and could not complete your request.

Please try again in 30 seconds.

for some time now --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 02:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apoc2400, I have been having the same trouble and receive the same error message when I try to use the handy citation tool, Reftag.appspot.com . 30 seconds or a week later, the same error message appears. I find this a very useful tool both for shortening very long googlebook links and learning ISBN for many books in inline citations. Will this tool be available again any time soon? -- Prairieplant (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost essential for adding Books that are in Google Books to Citations - my concern is that this user may not be active currently --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 02:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this issue was identified earlier this year - see here --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 02:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that (a) there have been issues for a while, but the server error is new, and (b) this user has not responded to comments on this page for some years --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 02:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Apoc2400: Just another ping to see if you're still around. Seeing the same issues as above. - Scarpy (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear not. Therefore other resources need to be used instead. Some are using Zotero, others the citoid within Visual editor. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The script code (Python) is available. I don't know how useful it is; it's quite old. Possibly the tool was taken offline because it no longer worked, and updating was not an option? Not something I can help with. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://reftag.appspot.com:80/nytweb.py
• https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://reftag.appspot.com:80/doiweb.py
• https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://reftag.appspot.com/gb.py
• https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://reftag.appspot.com/static/gb.js
• https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://reftag.appspot.com/returnjs.py
• https://web.archive.org/web/20210224161430/http://reftag.appspot.com/nytweb.py
• https://web.archive.org/web/20200801133935/https://reftag.appspot.com/doiweb.py
• https://web.archive.org/web/20210528081530/http://reftag.appspot.com/
• Wikipedia:RefToolbar/1.0#refToolPlus

• https://web.archive.org/web/20190126091659/http://marklets.com/RefTag.aspx

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what point you are trying to make here --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Women to the Top is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women to the Top until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Apoc2400! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Idemitsu Kosan logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Street News Service logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women's websites has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article [[

International Aerospace Quality Group]] is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Aerospace Quality Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Wibbit23 (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]