Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions
LokiTheLiar (talk | contribs) |
|||
(10 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 199: | Line 199: | ||
== Norse Deity pages == |
== Norse Deity pages == |
||
{{DR case status| |
{{DR case status|closed}} |
||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 02:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1722133292}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! --> |
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 02:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1722133292}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! --> |
||
{{drn filing editor|Dots321|02:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)}} |
{{drn filing editor|Dots321|02:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)}} |
||
{{DRN archive top|Closed as being handled in the appropriate forum. The editors who want to include infoboxes for the Norse gods can follow either or both of two approaches. First, they can develop infoboxes for individual articles, and add them, which will probably be reverted. They can then start an RFC in each article on whether to include the infobox. Second, they can discuss at [[WT:WikiProject Mythology|WikiProject Mythology]], and possibly develop standards. Either approach or both can be used. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> |
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> |
||
Line 403: | Line 403: | ||
—[[User:VeryRarelyStable|VeryRarelyStable]] 04:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC) |
—[[User:VeryRarelyStable|VeryRarelyStable]] 04:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC) |
||
{{DRN archive bottom}} |
|||
== List of South Korean girl groups == |
== List of South Korean girl groups == |
||
Line 549: | Line 550: | ||
*::How would that lead to a different result compared to the RfC a year ago? [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 05:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
*::How would that lead to a different result compared to the RfC a year ago? [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 05:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
||
*:::It probably wouldn't, but I'm fine with that, since my goal from the beginning is to implement the result of the RFC. I don't feel any pressing need to change the consensus. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 14:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
*:::It probably wouldn't, but I'm fine with that, since my goal from the beginning is to implement the result of the RFC. I don't feel any pressing need to change the consensus. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 14:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
||
*::::And that I would strongly disagree with, since I think you misread the close reason. [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 15:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::I'm pretty confident I didn't misread the close reason, as the person who started that RFC in the first place. But if nothing else, a new RFC will have a new close reason that will presumably be harder to misinterpret. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 20:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I missed Robert's question about examples in the RFC, and I do think some specific examples might help, since there was a difference of opinion last time about examples crucial to the concept (like Cincinnatus) and just random dictators who have at some time been called benevolent by someone. |
|||
I also think that, because of the way the RFC was closed last time, we should at minimum include the status quo of the previous RFC (namely, "only if crucial to the concept AND with attribution"), in addition to "yes" and "no". But I wouldn't object to more options than this. |
|||
Finally, I think that it might be relevant how examples are mentioned. I can say for myself that I feel the example section in the article previously was big [[WP:NPOV]] problem: giving Castro or Tito a whole section in [[benevolent dictators]] implies very strongly that they are benevolent in Wikivoice. However, I have much less problem with inline mentions with attribution: {{tq|Source X calls Fidel Castro a "benevolent dictator", while sources Y and Z disagree.}} [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 20:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Fourth statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship)=== |
|||
Each editor is asked to propose improvements to the RFC. I am not planning to publish the RFC in the form of asking about deleting anything. So if you think that there should be examples, propose specific examples (and be aware that the examples may be controversial). If you think that the question should give a choice other than Yes and No, state it. I intend to put the RFC in the form that I think is most likely to resolve the issue. |
|||
Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. |
|||
Are there any other comments or questions? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Fourth statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship)=== |
|||
My preferred RFC question: |
|||
Question 1: Should this article include examples of benevolent dictators at all? |
|||
: '''Option Y''': Yes. |
|||
: '''Option A''': Only with attribution. |
|||
: '''Option N''': No. |
|||
Question 2: If Options Y or A, which of the following examples that were included in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benevolent_dictatorship&oldid=1230670705 a previous version of this article] should be included? |
|||
# '''[[Cincinnatus]]''', the legendary [[Roman dictator|dictator]] of the ancient [[Roman Republic]]. |
|||
# '''[[Mustafa Kemal Ataturk]]''', founder of [[Turkey|the modern Turkish state]]. |
|||
# '''[[Josip Broz Tito]]''', head of [[communist Yugoslavia]] from 1953 to 1980. |
|||
# '''[[Lee Kwan Yew]]''', influential leader of [[Singapore]]. |
|||
# '''[[France-Albert René]]''', dictator of [[the Seychelles]] from 1977 to 2004. |
|||
# '''[[Thomas Sankara]]''', dictator of [[Burkina Faso]] from 1983 to 1987. |
|||
Question 3: If Options Y or A, should the examples be each in their own separate sections (as per the status quo) or only inline? |
|||
: '''Option S''': Separate sections. |
|||
: '''Option I''': Inline. |
|||
[[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 18:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I'd rather give specific diffs illustrating the differences. |
|||
::'''Question: Should this article contain [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benevolent_dictatorship&oldid=1231432669 examples] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benevolent_dictatorship&oldid=1231434640 not]? |
|||
:[[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 00:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Fifth statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship)=== |
|||
Exactly what is meant by "Only with attribution"? Does that mean in the form that "A considers B to have been a benevolent dictator of country C?" I infer that is what is meant, but want to be sure. |
|||
I have revised the draft RFC to include the With Attribution option and to provide proposed examples. |
|||
Are there any other comments or questions? |
|||
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Fifth statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship)=== |
|||
That is what I meant by "With Attribution", yes. But I'd also like to say I don't really like the separate Possible Examples section, and that I'm fine with Banedon's two diffs version. |
|||
The point of the different sections was to settle all the various subquestions that were brought up by participants in the last RFC. (Back then it was clear that many editors had opinions that were not "yes" or "no", especially around with/without attribution and whether Cincinnatus in particular was different from other examples.) While I'd prefer to vote on them directly, I think that if they're just going to be hanging around, Banedon's version with the two diffs is a better way to do that than just listing them. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Again I'd rather give example diffs, because the version right now promotes responses like "___ shouldn't be listed, because ...", which are not helpful with resolving the core issue. After resolving that, if the result is "yes", then one can argue whether ___ should be listed. [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Talk:Taylor Swift == |
== Talk:Taylor Swift == |
Revision as of 00:08, 14 July 2024
|
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Jessica Nabongo | New | Log6849129 (t) | 3 days, 14 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 7 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 7 hours |
Neith | New | Potymkin (t) | 3 days, 11 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 13 hours | Potymkin (t) | 14 hours |
Existential risk studies | Closed | JoaquimCebuano (t) | 1 days, 18 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 16 hours |
Ashfield Independents | Closed | NottsPolitics (t) | 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 6 hours |
Existential risk studies | Closed | JoaquimCebuano (t) | 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 06:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current disputes
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV
Apparently resolved. There is agreement on the units to be used in the articles in question. There is also agreement that any further discussion will take place at the automobile project conventions guideline talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions . Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Norse Deity pages
Closed as being handled in the appropriate forum. The editors who want to include infoboxes for the Norse gods can follow either or both of two approaches. First, they can develop infoboxes for individual articles, and add them, which will probably be reverted. They can then start an RFC in each article on whether to include the infobox. Second, they can discuss at WikiProject Mythology, and possibly develop standards. Either approach or both can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
List of South Korean girl groups
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed as fizzled out. It is apparently agreed that there should be a rule that specifies how and when an end date shall be listed. The editors were asked, three days ago, which of two rules they supported, or another rule. There hasn't been an answer. Maybe the editors have lost interest, or maybe they will resolve the matter by discussion on the article talk page. Discussion should continue on the article talk page. Be civil and concise. If discussion becomes lengthy and inconclusive again, the editors may request moderated discussion here, again. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Benevolent dictatorship
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Me and LokiTheLiar (and some other editors, but mostly the two of us) have been engaged in a long-running dispute about whether to include examples in the page. We've gone through RfCs and pings to WP:Politics, but never got anywhere; in fact the latest dispute suggests we even interpret the close reason for the previous RfC differently.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I don't believe more discussion between me and LokiTheLiar will lead anywhere; we simply disagree on a fundamental level and there's no prospect that will change. Any further discussion will just be rehashing old arguments.
Weighing in on how to interpret the close reason would be a good start.
Summary of dispute by LokiTheLiar
I interpret the close of the RFC a year ago to mean that dictators that are foundational to the concept of a benevolent dictator, like Cincinnatus, should be included with attribution, and that no other examples should be added even with attribution. I also think that this is a correct editorial decision as someone who started and participated in that RFC. Note that I wouldn't necessarily mind brief mentions of specific people, but I definitely think that organizing the page as a series of examples is very bad. Loki (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Benevolent dictatorship discussion
PS: Courtesy ping to Tayi Arajakate as the closer of the RfC (although as far as I can tell, they are inactive). Banedon (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship)
I am willing to try to work on this dispute to see how to try to resolve this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A, which will apply to our preliminary discussion. Be civil and concise. I see that there was an RFC about one-and-one-half years ago, and that the RFC did not resolve the disagreement, and now there appears to be disagreement about how to interpret the close of the RFC. Since the RFC was more than a year ago, and had disagreement at the time, a new RFC is probably a better idea than moderated discussion aimed at interpreting the RFC. So I have a few questions. Address your answers to my questions to the community and the moderator, not to each other. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion of the answers. First, do the editors agree to accept DRN Rule A? Second, are there any other content disagreements besides whether to provide examples? Third, does any editor have any objection to another RFC? We will probably have another RFC anyway. It will probably be preceded by discussion to define how to word the RFC, such as the inclusion or non-inclusion of specific examples. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship)
1) Sure, DRN Rule A looks reasonable. 2) There're no other content disputes that I'm aware of (LokiTheLiar might have a different interpretation). 3) Sure, we can have another RfC - but how will you do it different such that it can resolve the dispute? Banedon (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
First statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship)
One editor has asked a question. The other editor has not yet made a statement, and is still invited to make a statement. One editor asks: Sure, we can have another RfC - but how will you do it different such that it can resolve the dispute?
The first problem with the previous RFC is that some editors thought that the close was wrong, and disagreed with the RFC They ignored or disregarded the RFC rather than challenging the RFC close at WP:AN. This meant that the RFC was an empty exercise. If the result of the second RFC is in any way contentious, it should be reviewed in WP:AN, rather than ignored. Then, after any challenge of the RFC at WP:AN to the community, editors who edit against consensus persistently should be partially blocked.
Unless there is a reason why there should not be a second RFC, a draft of the second RFC will be prepared,. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship)
Second statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship)
I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Benevolent dictatorship/Draft RFC. Please review it and comment on it. If there are no significant comments, I will move it into the article talk page in 24 to 48 hours and activate it. Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship)
I don't object to the wording, but since it's effectively the same RfC as the first one how is it going to resolve the dispute? We can predict that it'll result in a 50% include and 50% do-not-include result, which still leaves things unresolved. Banedon (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship)
Do you have a different suggestion? Do you think that a revised wording is more likely to work better?
In particular, should examples be provided in the RFC?
If there are constructive suggestions for how to improve the RFC, we will continue to work on the RFC. Otherwise I will activate the draft RFC.
Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship)
I'm okay with another RFC but I sort of share Banedon's concerns about this RFC not actually resolving the issue. I do think it's better to try it than not though. Loki (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Considering the arguments for inclusion and non-inclusion are multi-faceted, it might make more sense to link the diff directly (this one) and ask if the removal is appropriate. Respondents can then say yes, the material should be removed and no similar material added, or no, the material is good/can be salvaged, etc. Banedon (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd personally prefer the RFC as-worded. I don't think "Here's a diff that removed most of the content on the page, is it good?" is better than "Should we have examples of specific benevolent dictators?" Loki (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- How would that lead to a different result compared to the RfC a year ago? Banedon (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- It probably wouldn't, but I'm fine with that, since my goal from the beginning is to implement the result of the RFC. I don't feel any pressing need to change the consensus. Loki (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- And that I would strongly disagree with, since I think you misread the close reason. Banedon (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty confident I didn't misread the close reason, as the person who started that RFC in the first place. But if nothing else, a new RFC will have a new close reason that will presumably be harder to misinterpret. Loki (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- And that I would strongly disagree with, since I think you misread the close reason. Banedon (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- It probably wouldn't, but I'm fine with that, since my goal from the beginning is to implement the result of the RFC. I don't feel any pressing need to change the consensus. Loki (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- How would that lead to a different result compared to the RfC a year ago? Banedon (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd personally prefer the RFC as-worded. I don't think "Here's a diff that removed most of the content on the page, is it good?" is better than "Should we have examples of specific benevolent dictators?" Loki (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I missed Robert's question about examples in the RFC, and I do think some specific examples might help, since there was a difference of opinion last time about examples crucial to the concept (like Cincinnatus) and just random dictators who have at some time been called benevolent by someone.
I also think that, because of the way the RFC was closed last time, we should at minimum include the status quo of the previous RFC (namely, "only if crucial to the concept AND with attribution"), in addition to "yes" and "no". But I wouldn't object to more options than this.
Finally, I think that it might be relevant how examples are mentioned. I can say for myself that I feel the example section in the article previously was big WP:NPOV problem: giving Castro or Tito a whole section in benevolent dictators implies very strongly that they are benevolent in Wikivoice. However, I have much less problem with inline mentions with attribution: Source X calls Fidel Castro a "benevolent dictator", while sources Y and Z disagree.
Loki (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship)
Each editor is asked to propose improvements to the RFC. I am not planning to publish the RFC in the form of asking about deleting anything. So if you think that there should be examples, propose specific examples (and be aware that the examples may be controversial). If you think that the question should give a choice other than Yes and No, state it. I intend to put the RFC in the form that I think is most likely to resolve the issue.
Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.
Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship)
My preferred RFC question:
Question 1: Should this article include examples of benevolent dictators at all?
- Option Y: Yes.
- Option A: Only with attribution.
- Option N: No.
Question 2: If Options Y or A, which of the following examples that were included in a previous version of this article should be included?
- Cincinnatus, the legendary dictator of the ancient Roman Republic.
- Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the modern Turkish state.
- Josip Broz Tito, head of communist Yugoslavia from 1953 to 1980.
- Lee Kwan Yew, influential leader of Singapore.
- France-Albert René, dictator of the Seychelles from 1977 to 2004.
- Thomas Sankara, dictator of Burkina Faso from 1983 to 1987.
Question 3: If Options Y or A, should the examples be each in their own separate sections (as per the status quo) or only inline?
- Option S: Separate sections.
- Option I: Inline.
Loki (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd rather give specific diffs illustrating the differences.
Fifth statement by volunteer (Benevolent dictatorship)
Exactly what is meant by "Only with attribution"? Does that mean in the form that "A considers B to have been a benevolent dictator of country C?" I infer that is what is meant, but want to be sure.
I have revised the draft RFC to include the With Attribution option and to provide proposed examples.
Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Benevolent dictatorship)
That is what I meant by "With Attribution", yes. But I'd also like to say I don't really like the separate Possible Examples section, and that I'm fine with Banedon's two diffs version.
The point of the different sections was to settle all the various subquestions that were brought up by participants in the last RFC. (Back then it was clear that many editors had opinions that were not "yes" or "no", especially around with/without attribution and whether Cincinnatus in particular was different from other examples.) While I'd prefer to vote on them directly, I think that if they're just going to be hanging around, Banedon's version with the two diffs is a better way to do that than just listing them. Loki (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Again I'd rather give example diffs, because the version right now promotes responses like "___ shouldn't be listed, because ...", which are not helpful with resolving the core issue. After resolving that, if the result is "yes", then one can argue whether ___ should be listed. Banedon (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Taylor Swift
Closed as filed, as a tagging dispute rather than a true article content dispute. The issue appears to be whether to put a tag on the lede paragraph so that uninvolved wiki editors can review and contribute to fix the issue. The purpose of all content dispute resolution is to improve the encyclopedia. DRN does not handle tagging disputes, and maybe the language at the top of the page should specifically mention and exclude tagging disputes, because tagging, as such, does not improve the encyclopedia, and discussion of whether to tag an article would be more productive as discussion of whether to change and improve the article. Tagging disputes are essentially a useless distraction. If the filing editor wants to revise the lede paragraph, they can discuss that as such on the article talk page, by proposing a particular rewritten version. If there is a local consensus against the change, a Request for Comments can be used to request that uninvolved editors review the issue and contribute to fixing it, if they think it needs to be fixed. If discussion of a specific rewrite of the lede paragraph on the article talk page is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request for dispute resolution can be filed here; however, after discussion on the article talk page, an RFC is more likely to be useful than another filing here. In the meantime, resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Kylie Minogue
Closed due to the lack of specific discussion here. The filing editor wishes to rework the lede paragraph and make other changes. They have been advised to attempt to make the changes, and then follow the sequence of [WP:BOLD |
Closed discussion |
---|
African diaspora
Closed for two reasons. The less important reason is that the filing editor has not notified the other editor of this filing, although they have posted a message on the user talk page of the other editor, that does not mention DRN. The more important reason is that their posting is not civil, and includes claims of vandalism. Yelling vandalism to "win" a content dispute is unfortunately common, but is not permitted. Discuss edits, not editors. Comment on content, not contributors. The editors should resume content discussion on the article talk page. If either editor thinks that discussion is not feasible due to conduct, they can file a report at WP:ANI, but should read the boomerang essay first. Resume civil discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|