User talk:Slatersteven

Marjorie Taylor Greene's Crossfit record

Please revert your change to my change. I actually wrote the original language, then discovered I had included her wrong placing and made the change which you subsequently reverted back. Please go to https://games.crossfit.com/athlete/65675 to see that MTG came 62nd in her age group in 2015 (and not 47th). Thanks Kransky (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Title of "Saint" edit warring

I've started a talk page discussion on the recent dispute for Talk:Simon of Trent#Title of "Saint" edit warring. Let's work together to find a solution there.

Vegantics (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Query for the removal of D. O. B. On Mangal Pandey

Hello @Slatersteven! Just saw that you had removed the Date of Birth of Mangal Pandey even though I had provided a source for the verification of the information. So, my question why had you removed it (obviously, it was not clear from the edit summary) and what should be done next.

Waiting for your reply. 16:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC) Amogh Tripathi (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the articles tralk poage. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't get you. Kindly tell me what should be done next and are whether will you remove the information again or not so that I can add it and improve the information on Mangal Pandey.

Seriously need a proper reply of yours. Amogh Tripathi (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the article talk page; ask this question there. If you are reverted, you ask there why. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

You reverted me so I am asking you why you did it. Besides, I was not doing any type of "vandal work." The Date of Birth of Mangal Pandey which I added was properly sourced. Still, You. Yes, YOU. Reverted mey edit.

Why should I ask on the Discussion page if you were the one who reverted my edit? Anyways, on what condition will you let me add it again? The information is true, many sources say it but, I added Britannica Encyclopedia as a reference as it is very popular. So, tell me straightforward. I really need to add the D. O. B. To improve the page.

10:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Amogh Tripathi (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Becasue that is how we do things, read wp:brd, I will not fall into the trap I have seen others fall into of private discussions that then get challged by others, if we discus it there, otherss get to see it and join in. I fail to understand why you do not want to. And no you do not NEED to add it, you want to. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Handling of Trump bias complaints

Re: [1]

Hi, please handle these per #61, as I did later. You could save my closure statement somewhere for easy copying-and-pasting. Or leave them for me, but the earlier they get closed, the sooner they get archived. In this case, there were nine hours between your comment and my closure. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I have added the suggested closure to the consensus item.[2] Making it even easier to do this. (I don't know about you, but I can select the entire {{atop}} string by triple-clicking anywhere within it. Then it's just a simple "copy" operation and a simple "paste" operation, and adding the {{abot}} at the bottom. Making it easier yet to do this.)

I assume copies and pastes are easy for you. If not, I recommend you work on developing that skill; it's an important skill for any editor's toolbox. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

American Civil War

In case you didn't know, there has been a discussion on the American Civil War Talk Page about that sentence. I think that my sentence is an improvement. Would you please explain on the Talk Page why you disagree. I'd like to develop a consensus about it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Which does not seem to say you can add it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I added another comment to the American Civil War Talk Page. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Kursk offensive (2024-2025). Link to ANI thread TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 228, April 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Borneo campaign of 1945 and warfare the South African way Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Santi book

Spamming fringe book, look at username and author's name. see Saint Thomas Christians Doug Weller talk 10:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

So why did you restore it? Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Korean war

What is the main reason for erasing other countries from the list? Hanyang.study (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Ask at the article talk page, but for one, are they sourced? Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

we can add source Hanyang.study (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

We? Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You asked for it Hanyang.study (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like a threat. Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This is nowhere close to threatening. You asked for the source. Hanyang.study (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Then that is what you should have written, as your wording is open to misinterpretation. Nor is that an Answer to what I asked, what do you mean by "we"? Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I wanna ask the same question. what do you mean by "we?"? Hanyang.study (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Are we in trouble? Hanyang.study (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Where have I used the word "we"? 08:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment

Check the details I left here. The IP and rationalwikian are almost certainly the same user trolling us. Best to close the discussion. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you help with editing a page

In etymology section of Bhumihar. The use of its synonym term bhuinhar for the first time recorded in describing Battle of Madarpur 1528, between mughals and bhuinhars of Madarpur. Which is also mentioned in Kanyakubj Vanshawali / Kanyakubj Prabodhni. Sources;

1. https://books.google.com/books?id=zVmaEAAAQBAJ&dq=Battle+of+Madarpur&pg=PT46

2. https://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/azamgarh-8981760.html?fbclid=PAY2xjawJ3ectleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABp9LzMVFCwSOt4ORMoHArj4s68ELO1ed09VH6Gxe_EjtrzzYrwq1j-OT2tUqG_aem_10IvJzAzX4198UQf3QFrqQ

3. https://archive.org/details/rDlx_kanya-kubja-vanshavali-devanagari-by-sri-pt.-lalmani-dharma-shastri-ji-shri-janta-book-stall-ka

Use the sources which you like. $govindsinghbabhan$ (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read wp:or, and wp:v source must actiakly say what you want to include. This issue has been discussed at the talk page, and there are differing opinions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

1st source discuss about battle.

2nd source is news article that discuss the same thing and include year(1528).

And 3rd is link to that Kanyakubj Vanshawali book. $govindsinghbabhan$ (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

And i said repeated discussion at the talk page threw up other sources that disagree, we do not take sides, now if you wish to relitigate this take it to the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I am talking about editing a different page. Bhumihar $govindsinghbabhan$ (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I read that. $govindsinghbabhan$ (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I have had no interaction with you on that page, so I have no idea what edit you are talking about. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

So can you help please. Mention Madarpur Battle. In bhumihar page. $govindsinghbabhan$ (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You need to read wp:undue, and please make the case at that article's talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

BLP does not apply to groups of people or organizations

Just a shocking claim to see from someone as experienced as you... Just to be perfectly clear BLP does not apply to large collections of living people such as organizations, companies, or countries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." And yes it can, just "not normally". But I stand by the basic point, we need good quality RS when there is doubt. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The size of Azov is not is doubt, we know its not small especially so small as to make individuals relevant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

No, but its status as being far-right is, as to size? it is not exactly huge, having no more the 2,500 members. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

For BLP purposes more than 100 is large. "Doubt" in that context applies to the size of the organization, for example if we're writing about the company "Exemplar and Associates" but can't deterine if its an actual company with many associates or just Jessi P. Exemplar the owner. In that case there would be doubt about the size of the org which is when we would default to treating info about Exemplar and Associates as if it was info about Jessi P. Exemplar. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Is that an official rule? Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

No its contextual, I've seen it argued and held that in some contexts five people is too many for BLP to apply. I've never seen anyone successfully argue that BLP applied to a group of more than 100 and the only ones I've seen be close were because the size of the org was in doubt. I haven't seen everything though, if such a case exists I'd be very interested in knowing about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 229, May 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at aspects of World War II Review essay: Nick-D on Osprey Publishing Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Undue?

Undue?, Indian minister has confirmed it that both sides have agreed for the cease fire and Pakistan's minister has confirmed the same, whats the point of removing that? I.Mahesh (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The undue part is the amount of prominence Trumpys announcement is given. Only the opinions of the two players matter. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

About EC edit requests

Hi,

It seems that you're effectively answering a bunch of EC Edit requests on Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict. Could I request you also mark the |answered=yes parameter whenever you believe the edit request is answered? ! There seems to be a permanent backlog of edit requests on that page, so any templates you handle is ones others don't have to. Thank you! Soni (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Slater

Can you please check the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, the casualties section keeps getting deleted and I requested the change to be reverted, they did revert it but now again after 2 days it's deleted.

Also i'm not sure who is doing this but whenever I scroll over Pakistan, it takes me not to Pakistan article but terrorism article, I don't want to name call anyone but it's very evident who is doing this vandalizing and I was requesting for you if you can please keep close eye on Pakistan related articles because it seems someone is vandalizing them. Ironman993 (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Science

Science is good. 114.46.147.190 (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Read my user page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Blank section at ANI

WP:ANI#New user POV pushing? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, just have it enter by mistake, as about to file an ANI, but they are a new user so I felt I needed to tell them I would report them and give they a chance to stop. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello Slatersteven:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Blogs

Hi,

Just curious were it says that blogs (no matter who writes it) should be used. Wikipedia says like this:

"Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites."

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

I think it's important to use good sourcing and improving the article, that's all. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

wp:sps " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.". Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources."

Agree it says like this. "May," and that it is not preferred right. I'm just curious why the blogs are even necessary, couldn't we just use all the other sources? We both can agree a blog post is not optimal, I guess? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

They are no more necessary than any other source, but they sometimes contain opinions from relevant experts. Thus are the opinions we should want, not those of talking heads in the media. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we agree that Wikipedia states that they are not preferred and that other sources are preferred? I'm just talking about the official policy, 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

No, as they are allowed. We do not have any kind of preferred source policy. If it is an RS it is an RS irrespective of what kind of source it is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

So why does it say like this?

"Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources" 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Read the rest of it, we should exercise caution as to how we use it. Such as for information in wp:blp's. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean I agree that it's not completely forbidden, in this case I just argue that better sources can be used. But I'll leave it at that.

Another question, shouldn't the sources be properly represented in the article? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Occasionally, things are claimed in the article, that wasn't really said in the sources, like some of the examples I found before. I think that's a big issue actually. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

That is a wp:v issue, and if that is the case a claim (or source) can be removoed as wp:or, though it is often best to tag if rather as failing verification. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

DanBritton

I don't believe there is much point in your engaging with the editor. As is often the case, even editors trying to help, get added to the conspiracy against the sanctioned editor. Abecedare (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hence why I said that was my last word. Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

War on terror

Hi, look, I have a question regarding the article on the war on terror. Why shouldn't the current de facto leader of Al-Qaeda, Saif al-Adel, be included in the infobox? Is the war on terror really over?

On the other hand, the information is quite ambiguous about whether this war is actually over or not. Aksel 5001 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The article talk page is the place form this discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

India Pakistan conflict 2025 Analysis section

Is there any reason you deleted this from Analysis section which is confirmed by Washington Post? what is the offense here?

The Washington Post, which reviewed more than two dozen satellite images, confirmed damage to at least six Pakistani airfields noting that some of the Pakistani sites hit were 100 miles deep inside Pakistani territory. It further noted that these strikes were the most extensive Indian air attacks on Pakistani military infrastructure since the 1971 war. Foodie 377 (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it was stated in the first edit summary when I removed it, why did you claim it was a mistake? Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok fine you removed it on purpose. But I am asking why? it shows reference to an article. it is not WP:OR. what are the grounds for removal Foodie 377 (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Why did you say it was removed accidentally when it was not? And I have already answered you.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I genuinely thought it was a mistake along with the other NZZ revert. But I am not clear on why you removed this one. I really am not clear why. Can you answer that? Foodie 377 (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

What?, that is the only edit I made today. As to why I shall quote my edit summary. "NO per WP:ONUS it is down to thhose wantng to add something to get consneus.". You are expected to read edit summaries. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Please try to add claims of John Spencer Tom cooper Michael Rubin and Damien Symon and Tom Cooper in Analysys and other places

Please add the claims of these in this wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict

https://www.theaustraliatoday.com.au/indias-strategic-decimation-of-pakistan-resets-global-geo-political-military-matrix-despite-legacy-media-propaganda/

Before all these claims were rejected because admins says they are from Indian media. But now this is reported by a neutral media The Australiatoday So this should be added. Australia Today is a neutral media and every news published by them will be fully verified by the chief editors of Australia today before publishing. 157.51.213.56 (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Also all these statements are clearly shown diverted to respective statement owners verified X posts.

Thanks 157.51.213.56 (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

See thre talk page as to why these have have not been added. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Please question

South African Republic was a 1852-1902, and during WW1 South African Republic got an rebellion on 15 September 1914. Wolf Official (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

No that was the Maritz rebellion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I did created a topic in "Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War"

Hello ! I think that this topic could maybe interest you.
"Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War#Concerning_the_edit_of_this_article_in_"MAY/26/2025"_at_"16:59_UTC"".

I did mentionned your edit in "MAY/26/2025" at "17:04 UTC".
If you have an interest for this topic. You can participate.
Don't forget that you are not under obligation to participate if you don't want. Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi article

Hey @Slatersteven! I noticed that you reverted all the edits I had made on the Nancy Pelosi article. I think such a decision warrants a discussion, and, of course, an explanation on your end. Thank you. DannyRogers800 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I did, i the edit summary. I felt that some of your changes went way beyond what you claimed, so yes it is now down to you to start a conversation at the articles talk page and get consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I think I gave summaries that were specific enough (for instance, "Added notes list, amended bibliography, adjusted 'Early life and education' section, added citations, removed an external link"—that is as specific as I can possible be). Regarding my last edit, I was merely addressing the claims raised on GAR, namely, that the article needs to be trimmed. Another concern raised was the lack of citations, and I am trying to deliver on that as well. Therefore, I don't think I required any consensus for any of my edits (remember "Be bold"), but I don't expect that this issue will be resolved easily. Nonetheless, if we eventually find ourselves in agreement, I can undo the revert and go back to editing the article. DannyRogers800 (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Do ont edit war, make a case at the talk page, not here. And I objected to your edits, so yes you need to get consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Thanks. DannyRogers800 (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

India Pakistan conflict analysis

Can this article be used in the analysis section of that article. I'm only posting this here because the talk page is closed there. https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/05/22/indias-wake-up-call-why-us-defense-reform-must-match-the-speed-of-modern-war/ Can anyone please add this source in the India Pakistan conflict analysis section. The article reads: India’s overwhelming success demonstrated something more enduring than airpower. It validated a national defense doctrine built around efficient domestic industrial strength. And most significantly, it delivered a clear message to its strategic rival. Pakistan—a Chinese proxy by armament, alignment, doctrine—was completely outmatched. Its Chinese-made air defense systems could not stop, detect, or deter India’s precision strikes. In Sindoor, India didn’t just win. It demonstrated overwhelming military superiority against a Chinese-backed adversary.c' Bunnybun746 (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

You would need to ask at the talk page, and also suggest a text. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

If I start a move discussion will you support me in consenses?

Babhan term is obviously more older than bhumihar Term 103.88.57.34 (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

So? Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

So the Article Redirected from Bhumihar caste to Babhan caste.

Babhan term comes first

and then Bhuinhar Brahman transliterated bhumihar Brahman term appeared in madarpur Account

Then bhumihar term

In very Short:

This article contains Babhan, Later, the word Bhumihar Brahmin was popularized. On reading the article itself, it is telling that the community attempted to popularise the term "Bhumihar Brahmin", while discarding the term "Babhan". However, the term "Babhan" remained popular in Bihar. 103.88.57.34 (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

What article? Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

To put it another way, you are asking me (in effect) to support an edit, without really explaining what that edit is, What page do you want to move? Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Stop refactoring your comments now that they have been replied to. Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Circumcision

FYI: I have requested conflict resolution on our dispute in the article circumcision. Chaptagai (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI: I made a RFC on this question. Chaptagai (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 230, June 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Antonine Plague and cryptographic security Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)