User talk:DarkFalls

Contribs —— Home —— Talk —— Email —— Identity —— To Do —— DYK

---

Wikimedia Commons —— Meta-Wiki —— Wikipedia —— Wikisource —— Wikiquote —— Wiktionary

DarkFalls' Talk Page Welcome to DarkFalls' talk page. Please keep civil and sign your comments.

Archives

2006 November, 2006 December, 2006 2007 January, 2007 February, 2007 March, 2007 April, 2007 May, 2007 June, 2007 July, 2007 August, 2007 September, 2007 October, 2007 November, 2007 December, 2007 2008 January, 2008 February, 2008 March, 2008 April, 2008 May, 2008 June, 2008 July, 2008 August 2008 to June 2009 2009 July to November, 2009 December, 2009 2010-2011 January to March, 2010 April, 2010 to December, 2011 2012-2013 January, 2012 February, 2012 to June, 2013 2013-2014 July, 2013 to March, 2014 April, 2014 to May, 2014 June, 2014 to November, 2014

AIV has been quite slow these days - when you have an IP on a rampage such as the one I reported to AN/I - I did so because AN/I is watched more closely than AIV. Just so you know my reasoning. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is slow does not mean you should report it to the wrong forum. By doing so, you're making the process even more inefficient. AIV in the future please. —Dark 05:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. If there's an urgency where eyes are needed more quickly, i.e. an IP address on a rampage such as this case - if AN/I is going to draw eyes, suppression, and a block more quickly, then AN/I is most certainly the correct avenue. I've been around the block a few times. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Process only works when it is being followed. Blatant vandalism gets reported at AIV. ANI already receives enough irrelevant reports on content disputes as it is. I fail to see how this instance of vandalism merits special treatment. —Dark 05:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note how there are a handful of reports at AI/V at the moment, all of which were reported before this IP that was issuing personal attacks and threats of violence. Note how that IP is currently blocked while these other reports at AI/V haven't even been touched yet? Just because there's a process for everything doesn't mean that they have to be followed

skin a cat. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I see that any further arguing will be fruitless. I've told you that subverting process for no reason is not a great idea. Hopefully you keep that in mind in the future. Have a good day. —Dark 05:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a reason - the IP was threatening to physically harm me, and was going on an attack spree. If you note, I use AI/V when there's not a immediate pressing issue and I could care less when that party is blocked. When they begin to threaten me and are causing an amount of considerable harm to the project, I'll go to IRC/ANI and any other avenue I can to get them blocked as quickly as possible. Realize that not everyone is a newbie and most of us have the best of intentions. Good day, sir. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This will have been the third time that a discussion has been held regarding the deletion of the Cultural Marxism article. These 'neutral editors', quite likely sockpuppets themselves, similarly do not have the right to overturn consensus by claiming 'no consensus', especially after an admin has already acted to delete the page beforehand and especially considering the sheer volume of SPAs voting 'keep'. I will start a dispute on the talk page in a bit, but if your strategy is to tire out the editors in this discussion until only SPAs and sockpuppets remain to repeat obvious falsehoods, you might just succeed. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me in what way overturning my closure unilaterally to reflect your understanding of consensus is appropriate. If you're asserting that I am a sockpuppet, then feel free to open a

investigation on it. If you are asserting that I am not neutral, please present the necessary evidence. —Dark 04:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The fact that you've closed a discussion in favour of 'keep' despite the already extant consensus on the matter without any coherent reason or justification doesn't bode well for your so-called neutrality, especially considering your attitude towards RGloucester in the course of the discussion. I'll be nominating the article the moment I figure out whether this is the second or just the first time we've been through this rigmarole. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware "no consensus" and "keep" were the same. Clearly you did not read my justification for the close, or HJ Mitchell's for that matter, but that's your prerogative. I'll just warn you right now that re-nominations directly after closure are usually not the wisest of ideas, but at least you're following process this time and I certainly won't stop you from doing so. —Dark 14:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would suggest that reverting this editorial decision to disambiguate, in an attempt to enforce this close, is incompatible with the independence required to use admin powers any further in this matter. This topic has been given to editorial process. Disambiguation is an editorial matter not an administrative one. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that my attempts to enforce a close constitutes an editorial decision, as opposed to an administrative one. There was no consensus established to form a disambiguation. I viewed the attempt as nothing more than to subvert/bypass the proper process, and responded accordingly. But I have no problems recusing from this topic altogether. Have a good day. —Dark 23:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As you're an admin editor who now understands the situation somewhat and can muck in a bit, any other cool heads, fresh ideas, and guidance in relation to enwiki policy would be useful, if you feel up to it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, DarkFalls, for your detailed close of Talk:Cultural Marxism#Merger with "Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory" – discussion 2 in response to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Restoring reverted close of Talk:Cultural Marxism#Re-proposal. I appreciate your good work. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been nominated again [1]. Any chance you could overlook this, seems like the same argument again and again. Loganmac (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nevermind I thought you were an admin, carry on. Loganmac (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin. However I have recused myself from all involvement in regards to this matter. —Dark 03:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DarkFalls, which discussion you had closed? Why this nom is written as 2nd nomination, asking as I couldn't find the first nomination. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Since it was a merger discussion, it was conducted on the article talk page —Dark 05:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies :) DarkFalls is one of our finest admins. Thanks also for the close. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and Happy Holidays,

I see that you implemented the ban on User:FergusM1970, which I support fully. In glancing at a few of the articles he admits editing for pay, I noticed Ventura Film Festival, which was created and significantly edited by User:Filmfann. I am wondering if this account should be blocked, and if examination of the other articles on that list might lead to more sockpuppets. Sock hunting is not my area of expertise (or interest), but I thought that this was worth bringing to your attention. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The account has not been active for 6 months. I suggest posting at

WP:SPI if suspicious activity is detected in the future though. —Dark 03:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. Your block notice on the user's page is confusing. You closed the discussion at ANI with a consensus of an indefinite block, but your notice makes it sound like the user was site-banned. I think you intended to issue just an indefinite block that the user can appeal in the

]

Consensus on ANI was for an indefinite block, until such time that the community is satisfied that the editor will be able to contribute in a collegial manner. I did not implement the block out of my own judgement, but on the consensus demonstrated on ANI. In order for the block to be reversed, he will have to demonstrate to the community, with evidence, that he is ready to contribute constructively. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a lack of consensus, when it is very clear that the majority of editors supported a indef block. A block implemented through community consensus is effectively a ban. —Dark 06:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how I interpret

WP:CBAN

, which says: "In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community"." Thus, the user would have to have been indefinitely blocked before a discussion at ANI to review that block. Then, if the review established that there was a consensus to leave the indef in place, the user would have been de facto banned. Sometimes, there is an actual proposal to site-ban an editor, and the community's consensus is to do so. That's not what happened here.

BTW, I'm involved as I argued in favor of sanctions, although I did not vote. As an aside, I also think it's crazy that the user is immediately appealing the ban, but that's another matter and doesn't suprise me a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is one method of implementing a CBAN. "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute" is the other. While we obviously disagree whether the ANI thread constituted a discussion to site ban, my understanding has always been that an indef block imposed with the will of the community is a CBAN. Whether an indef block was placed prior to the discussion or not is a non-issue. —Dark 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more rebuttal and then I'll leave you alone. Not one person that I can see voted for a site ban, and the language you quote relates, in part, to a proposal to site ban. If you're going to leave it the way it is, you might still consider changing your closure comment to indicate that the consensus was for a site ban instead of indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A community imposed indef block is a site ban. That's the basic reasoning for my close. —Dark 02:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the editor's immediate appeal, I think it is rather obvious what the outcome will be. —Dark 01:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We agree on that, at least. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) In retrospect, DarkFalls can't be faulted too much when the closer makes no distinction between a ban and a block either.[3] Maybe a memo should be sent out to all the admins or something. No one ever seems to say "Interaction Block", "Topic Block" or "Community Block". But somehow "ban" gets interchanged with "block" all the time. There should be no confusion in the terminology, especially for admins. Blocks are blocks, bans are bans. Doc talk 07:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can bind the article page with Facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by علي محسن البكاء (talk • contribs)

Thank you for ending that mess. After attempting to help, I felt like I was being sucker punched from all sides. It was the correct outcome, but what a ridiculous chain of events. --

]

I will agree, it was the correct outcome. If only people didnt use wikipedia to launch personal vendettas, think of all the time that would've been devoted to actual "noteworthy" articles. Obviously the better judgement of the Objective wiki community prevailed. Hopefully we can all move on, time will tell as the author of all three articles is still under a block for puppetting himself.🐍 02:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark310 (talk • contribs)

You're one to comment considering you were the worst

(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 09:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@scalhotrod, I Undertand you have a good working knowledge of WP:POLICY but what confuses me is which policies you seem to find worth paying attention to, and which policies you ignore. For example I can't even count how many times during this debacle you and your co-editor attempted to violate WP:DOXING. Jeez, first you attempted to "out" my identity, then you attempted to go after another poor editor.... It's Kind've amusing how fast your vote changed when your associate who wrote all these articles was blocked for puppeting. WP says two wrongs don't make a right. As for my user page, well, I knew you wouldn't let the matter go, what with your multiple attempts to have this (now unanimously agree upon) inappropriate and inaccurate information "kept" in wikipedia. I tried to civilly discuss this with you today. I reminded you that your user page existed and could be interpreted as a preemptive move on your part to get around the deletion process. I assumed good faith even, and tried to be civil. You promptly ordered me to stay off your talk page, after making yet another inaccurate yet inappropriate attempt to WP:OUT my identity. Jeesh. Lot of hostiltiy for a guy who just wants to be inclusive. N 11:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)🐍Sigh. Well. I'm not going to say that anyone is a WP:SORELOSER, but I'm just happy with the outcome. This was the final loose end, and in the end, the process seemed to work.

Shark, give it rest. For the record I never tried to out or dox anyone. Whoever you are, you got what you wanted, this is an instance where in my opinion Policy worked in favor of those with less than transparent intentions. Gloating about it (of all places on an Admin's Talk page) and trying to bait me just strike me as

WP:NOTHERE

to build an encyclopedia, but you're far from being alone in that aspect. I have been on this site long enough to know that things like racism, bigotry, religious persecution, gender bias and inequality, and ethnocentrism are represented in a myriad of ways. So at the end of the day, its fairly easy for me to regard your efforts as petty and trivial. I urge you to go back to ignoring Wikipedia and move on with your life. -Scalhotrod

(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:UND. Cut and paste is not acceptable. —Dark 09:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Dark, no worries. I had created that page as a starting point back on Dec. 25th, not a re-use, then someone else went and created the "Killing of..." article. What I find odd is Shark310's copy/paste of the article on the same day that you deleted it and then accusation that I was trying to circumvent the deletion [5]. --

(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 09:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah I am quite confused about that. Regardless, everything seems to be sorted. —Dark 10:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dark, Yes, for the time being that seems to be the case. But I suspect only until there's another mention of Nate Moore killing Dave Ward. Thanks again, --

(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

DarkFalls Im confused:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nate_Moore_(actor)&oldid=642189564]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Looks like someone recreated the deleted articles, in violation of

. Even if done with "good intentions" (although difficult to imagine here given the creators vigilance in arguing to "include/keep" in all three AFDs), I can't imagine why such an experienced editor wouldn't be aware of the correct procedure to request deletion review or the wikipedia policy regarding recreated properly deleted articles. It should be noted that the current wikipedia process in AFD discussions allow for many consensus options: "KEEP", "DELETE", "MERGE" and "REDIRECT." The consensus here was to delete. Thus, it appears that the author of the re-created pages is blatantly ignoring the consensus due to a case of . I would tag these two recreated articles for speedy deletion myself, per policy, but I don't want to be accused of CENSORSHIP Yet again by scalhotrod. However im sure that Admins don't take kindly to an editor circumventing policy to make a point. 🐍 23:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In this case, I don't see a problem with the redirect of an actor to a notable film in which he starred in. —Dark 00:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

aha. I think I understand your point here. Thank you for your time, good advice.🐍 02:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you consider cutting the protection of cleavage (breasts) to four days or so? A week seems a bit much. Johnbod, Evergreen and I had at least a dozen edits in there that had absolutely nothing to do with what was being contested like non-removals, moving of content and simply copyediting.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin is free to change the length of the protection (or remove the protection entirely) as long as they are reasonably satisfied that the edit warring has stopped. I am not convinced that this is the case at the current time, but will reassess accordingly as consensus develops. —Dark 01:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there is still an ongoing discussion on ANI. Until that discussion has been resolved, I think it will be ill-advised to change the length of my original protection. The current protection acts as a deterrent to rash behaviour, until tempers have been cooled and editor conduct stops being an issue in this dispute. —Dark 01:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your call. But I'd appreciate if you watch out for "status quo" reverts as well as anything by us who were originally involved. A lot of that dispute was exacerbated by users making "neutral" reverts which did nothing but fan the flames. A 1RR approach to warnings of edit warring seems perfectly in order.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, you know better than anyone the cycle of

WP:BRD. There is not another 'R' after that initial revert. Evergreen did all those edits, someone reverted, they were supposed to go to the talk page to get consensus, not continue reverting. The 'neutral' revert was to restore the status quo. You attempting to argue that they should not have done that is confusing. Tutelary (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, the ANI seemed to produce a lot of negative comments about those "status quo" reverts. But I guess I'm an involved party. My point was that I support the idea of putting everyone on a tight leash. You know, to avoid further edit warring?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the full protection is a more effective way of stopping the edit warring, given how many people were involved in it. If the edit warring persists after the protection is removed/expires, then we may have to arrange for an alternative solution. —Dark 05:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DarkFalls your page is COOL! How do you make a user page this si just making no sense to me at all! Thnx, from a new user, Marshamallow 360! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshamallow 360 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can find some tutorials on designing a userpage at:

WP:UPDC. But you probably shouldn't worry too much about it, this project is for creating and editing articles after all. —Dark 10:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new

]

A cookie for you!

Awesome user page! Samwightt (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello,

Please note that

]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi DarkFalls.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available

but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at

]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TENCOL

Template:TENCOL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following a

]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are

remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article A Cage of Butterflies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced since 2009; merge/redirect to Brian Caswell?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi, this is concerning User:DarkFalls/SALT: the cascading protection you used there prevents the creation of a page; I have therefore pulled the protection back to semi. Sorry about just doing that, but you are rarely on here anymore. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tennis topic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tennis topic/old has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 03:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A

. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)