User talk:Ppt91/Archive 1

I believe the rationale was valid given the rare nature of the photograph and its benefit for the article, although to ensure there are no possible violations this image will not be re-uploaded or used for the article. Ppt91 (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article

The article Henryk Stażewski you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Henryk Stażewski for comments about the article, and Talk:Henryk Stażewski/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for your message. I am glad you pointed it out for this specific article. I'm trying to get the English article on the Society to at least B class in the near future; while the museum (Zacheta) page is very useful, many inline citations are missing, which means I had to locate the citations myself for the (originally unreferenced) copied text and attribution escaped me. Will make sure to attribute all moving forward! Ppt91 (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ppt91, thankyou for starting the GA review on

Hey @

Gazozlu, thanks for your reply. Would you mind sending a message acknowledging the review process in the GA review talk page? It's best we communicate there to keep a record. Happy to look at the list when we're done with the GA nomination. Looking forward to working together. Ppt91 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That account you reverted on Midwest FurFest is a sock of Kamen rider saber. If you see their edits, just go straight to AIV. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LilianaUwU thank you, they were just blocked! Ppt91 (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ppt91. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC) Ppt91 (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ppt91. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You first messaged me and said I had deleted an entire page, which I had not. You rolled back the good faith edits I had performed without proper review or even understanding of what I had edited. I would like my edits restored. Per the instructions you were given when you were given your rollback privilege by HJ Mitchell:

Hi Ppt91. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback: Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn. Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits. Rollback should never be used to edit war. If abused, rollback rights can be revoked. Use common sense. If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC) 136.175.164.197 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 136.175.164.197 Hi, I believe that the situation has already been remedied and the relevant edits restored. I also left a reply on your page directly apologizing for the oversight. Because your account appeared as an IP user with a very large edit and what seemed like a non-NPOV edit summary on a controversial subject, I wanted to remedy the situation as soon as possible. I should have investigated further and it's my bad. Ppt91 (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Q. Re your edit. Is this an "orhan" page?HistoricReminder (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Not sure if it is that you already decided. But, I from my part, will explain. I originally came up with the idea upon seeing the red link in an existing page. I don't see the reasons for deleting. It's written about in [1] books and Updated in news portals in that country. Regards.HistoricReminder (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:GEOLAND notability criteria before it can be reviewed. That means that even if you provide reliable sources, they need to support content which goes "beyond statistics and coordinates" to meet notability requirements. As of now, the article is not sufficient to stand on its own. Good luck! Ppt91 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe it needs to be a stub. Please see this https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-0182(03)00276-1 In any case, Thanks for your contributions.HistoricReminder (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I see you tagged this article at NPP for lack of sources and doubtful notability. The subject passes WP:NPOL because they were a member of a state legislature in a federal country, and two sources were sufficient to verify this. I’ve removed the tags and passed the article as patrolled. All the best Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

WP:NPOL in fact applied here until you pointed it out. Ppt91 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Ppt91. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ashish Aviral, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio ^giuliano 09:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Salvio giuliano! Thank you. I was on the fence whether to go ahead with A7 or PROD and I appreciate your taking the time to explain your decision. Either way, the article most definitely needs a lot of work to maintain notability! Ppt91 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you and, to be fair, I'm not entirely sure he is notable enough to qualify for inclusion, but by design it's relatively easy to pass A7, because speedy deletion is reserved for the most obvious cases. For dubious cases such as this one, it's always best to PROD or send to AfD directly. Cheers. Salvio ^giuliano 20:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

How can I tell if a source is reliable? JohnDVandevert (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:VERIFY as it comes to sources. If you have doubts whether your source is reliable, you can always post in the article's talk page to seek other opinions. Also, I would recommend this list of frequently discussed sources and their level of reliability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions! Ppt91 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1buyF-2LjOc&feature=youtu.be Choggcom (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

At 2m54s Choggcom (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Choggcom (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:REFSTART. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions. Ppt91 (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe you made a mistake. The editor I reverted has made similar edits to other articles and the edit I reverted was vandalism. Cheers, 47.227.95.73 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@47.227.95.73 Hi! This was the edit I wanted to revert; if it double crossed, then it was by accident. As long as the vandalized edit is gone, then it's all good. Thank you for alerting me to it. Ppt91 (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Stanley (psychologist) is a lovely page. Well done.

BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ppt91,

Thank you for creating Joan Wadleigh Curran.

Thanks for the article about a notable artist! Try to make connections by finding another page to link to this article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bruxton (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton thanks! That and the categories still need to be added (as I now realize), which I hope to address fairly soon. Ppt91 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Ppt91 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ppt91. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-enwikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree Thank you for your message and for allowing me to comment on what I see as a topical and very important case. Please know it is duly noted. I'll amend the responses as soon as possible to fit within the limit. Ppt91 (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, take your time, and thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree Done. According my text editor, it all should now fit within 500 words (including my second reply). Ppt91 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me too! Thanks again! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent support at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottopasuuna. On the matter of Officialangrydub's logic, check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No More Heroes (record label) where they incomprehensibly accused someone else of a retaliatory AfD with no evidence whatsoever. That may also be when they developed a dislike for me. They're a relative newbie and perhaps a stern talking-to is in order, but the fractured logic on display in all their recent AfD actions indicates many basic misunderstandings of how things work around here. It looks like you're much more knowledgeable than me about investigation/arbitration and the like, so I'll defer to you. Thanks again. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

WP:DISCUSSAFD

.

This user's behavior is really getting to a point where it's becoming disruptive and if it persists, I think we might need to consider asking an admin to step in; however, I am hoping that it will be resolved, at least as far as this meritless and retaliatory AfD goes. I think that some people just can't wrap their heads around the idea of consensus and get really upset if a person they like doesn't have a page. It's unfortunate, because I am sure they could contribute well if they had just taken a step back and realized that truly all that other editors ask for is to simply follow

WP:POLICY

.

Also, and this fully in personal capacity and unrelated to the case, your quote of "I was once mentioned in a city newspaper" made me laugh so hard that I kind of just want to frame it and hang it on the wall. Gold. Ppt91 (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper thing really did happen, and I (under my given name) was mentioned in a reliable source!!! But it was not

significant coverage so I am not notable no matter how important that newspaper is. I have used this story several times in AfD discussions when someone can't see the distinction between a brief mention and actual coverage. And speaking of hanging it on the wall, I was pestered for months by a small business that offered to cut out the newspaper article and turn it into a plaque. Thanks again. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Officialangrydub

Thanks for reaching out here. There is no need to apologize to me; I did not take offense, though I certainly found your posts and general conduct toward other editors concerning. And I do believe the AfD should be withdrawn given improvements—which should be a formality really—and that it still came off as retaliatory (perhas Doomsdayer520 is the one deserving an apology here).

As for the rest of your message, I am not quite sure there was any targeted attack on your sources specifically. I was the original reviewer of the page and I even left you a pretty lengthy note regarding several issues, suggesting it might be nominated for deletion if these issues were not addressed. Another editor, likely noticing no improvements had been made, requested PROD which I supported. Because that was contested without edits, the next logical step was AfD. The entire process is designed so that editors have sufficient time to address outstanding issues, including during AfD nomination, and if it gets to a point where the article is no longer salvageable, deleting the article is a responsible thing to do. Note that the issues originally raised have not changed and more editors simply concurred with what was originally said.

Regarding the source, as a general rule of thumb, if you need to work really hard to convince multiple independent editors that the source is in fact reliable and verifiable, it is most likely not. No sources are perfect and there is obviously room for error, but

WP:RELY

criteria and guidelines are quite clear as it comes to establishing notability.

I also don't think it's fair to say that a lack of mission statement automatically negates journalistic integrity or to automatically assume a lack of editorial oversight from such a large company. I don't think this is a very productive approach. The burden of proof

WP:SINGER

criteria.

I can provide various examples of other sources that aren't held to that same level of scrutiny. Again, this won't help verify the source or make claims any more believable. You should feel free to scrutinize all sources you encounter and then apply the same level of scrutiny to your own contributions. At the same time, keep in mind that sources used to reference or support additional claims in articles once notability has been established would often not stand on their own, eg. I can use the website of a well-known commercial gallery to reasonably verify the date or name of an artwork by its subject, but I could not use it just to establish their notability.

Finally, I would recommend assuming good faith, especially when you are dealing with multiple editors with some degree of experience (and especially reviewers) whose responsibility it is to ensure quality content. I hope this clarifies things. Ppt91 (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi here's Dhaya's birth certificate. His mom's name is Kanthi. Not Gandhi. Please correct that as my edit was removed i think. I don't know how to. I'm new. https://drive.google.com/file/d/15GcG-fpyC0dWkZMosV4o9RScC-qlp5Y-/view?usp=drivesdk Rishibrahma (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

WP:1ST. They will explain editing process in detail and also will show you how to cite sources correctly and which sources are considered reliable. I hope this helps. Please feel free to let me know if you have other questions! Ppt91 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you please download and add a jpg image of the birth certificate Rishibrahma (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15GcG-fpyC0dWkZMosV4o9RScC-qlp5Y-/view?usp=drivesdk

Maybe as it's Sunday the birth certificate portal is not working on my phone Rishibrahma (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:HELPDESK if you have any more questions. Ppt91 (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/madurai/nothing-political-says-alagiri-after-udhayanidhi-stalins-meet/articleshow/97044649.cms Rishibrahma (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rishibrahma (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ppt91. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, please be aware that lack of an edit summary isn't an appropriate reason to revert an edit. Please review both

@Grandpallama Thank you for pointing it out; I never mean to rush pending changes, nor revert them unless there is a good reason, and this was clearly an oversight. Noted and I appreciate your taking the time to let me know. Ppt91^talk 22:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ppt91. Thank you for your work on

Thank you for creating this article on a notable historic exhibition series. There are additional reliable and academic sources available via The Wikipedia Library. I started a "Further reading" section and placed one of the articles there.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Netherzone (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

WP:VISUALARTS and appreciate the input. I wanted to get this one as soon as possible out so I could link it to another page, which is why it only has like two books and an article, but it deserves more coverage, ideally at least half of its counterpart in pl-wiki (which I actually think some serious cleanup, but that's a different story). Also, would love to potentially collaborate on any related topic, including women artists bios; Franciszka Themerson is one I've been wanting to tackle for a while now... Let me know if you'd be interested. Thanks again. Ppt91^talk 17:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Good to meet you! It was interesting to learn about this Biennale, I think it is important to cover historical exhibition projects like this. And, yes, I'm up for collaborating on visual arts projects. I'll have a deep look at the Franciszka Themerson - on first glance, the biography section needs citations, as do the exhibitions. I also think the exhibits should be edited down to the most important ones, then contextualized in prose-form. Dates are not really needed except maybe the year. For example, the Pompidou Center, Whitechapel Gallery, Muzeum Sztuki, Muzeum Narodowe, Tate Britain, ICA, London are all really important, but they get lost in the long list of gallery shows. Maybe a couple sentences at the beginning of the section that she started showing in the 1950s and shown consistently throughout the decades. It's fascinating to learn about her work, thanks for creating the article. I wouldn't mind some help with this short article on the Sonsbeek exhibit series - it was groundbreaking for including early earthworks/land art. It's just a start and I've been meaning to get back to it to expand it. Netherzone (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone Thanks! I actually haven't created that one--just really like her work and she's quite under-researched. There was a show in London recently and I know her foundation is working hard to make more happen. It would be great to add to her notability. As for your suggestions for the article, I agree with all points and think they're a great place to start with to improve the page.

And I'd be very happy to jump in to help some with Sonsbeek page. Source-wise, it looks like there is already enough to work with, so I imagine a lot of it would be expanding the content. Did you have any specific ideas for sections? I think it'd make sense to add some stuff from "Ortiz Monasterio R. Sonsbeek Beyond the Limits. C Magazine. 2017;(133):72"(unless you had already looked at that and not found it that useful?) and definitely use Boettger, Suzaan. Earthworks: Art and the Landscape of the Sixties. United Kingdom: University of California Press, 2002. for the part about Smithson (if you'd like, I can write a concise paragraph to include on Smithson referencing a chapter from her book either today or tomorrow). Also, I was unaware until recently that apparently there had been a major curatorial conflict, which I think might be a good idea to include for recent events. Let me know your thoughts! Ppt91^talk 18:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these suggestions on the Sonsbeek article, I agree with everything you mention, including the curatorial conflict. Please jump in when you find the time. I will do some work on the Themerson article starting with the exhibition section. Netherzone (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone Sounds like a plan. Will ping you when ready with the Smithson part, likely sometime later today/tomorrow. :) Ppt91^talk 19:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the Exhibitions section on the Themerson article, renaming the section Selected exhibitions. It now includes only the most prestigious shows, and I've added a number of citations for verification (they are easy to find). I think some of these sources can be used again to verify content in the Biography section as well.

While working on it, I was reminded of the fact that other women artists who worked collaboratively with their husbands are not always so fortunate as to have their own article, for example, Emilia Kabakov who worked extensively with her husband for years. They are widely known as Ilya and Emilia Kabakov. She is completely overshadowed on Wikipedia by Ilya Kabakov, and is barely mentioned in his article, and is mentioned only once in the article List of art installations by Ilya Kabakov (1983-2000). Maybe this is another project that we could collaborate on? Netherzone (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone Nice, thank you very much! As for the Kabakov page, I was blissfully unaware of that mess. I saw few citations and my instinct was to re-rate it to C at first, which I did, but then something told me I should double check the sources. I just ran copyvio and this is what I found. I think I removed all of it, though if you could re-run, I'd appreciate it. The range for revdel is literally like 90% of the history, and that was just one of three sources. That's nuts.

That probably explains why she's mentioned 5 (!) times in the entire article. It looks like it was mostly written by one person more than 15 years ago and then more copyvios added and removed over that period. Honestly, I feel like the page should be moved to "Ilya and Emilia Kabakov," but there might be pushback due to his earlier work. It probably might be easier to just do a page of her own at this point and add any appropriate information in Ilya Kabakov lead and then expand. That would also mean we wouldn't need to seek consensus on move, because it is factual information that's been missing and warrants inclusion. Definitely on board. Let me get through Sonsbeek first and I'll at the very least make a draft/stub of Emilia Kabakov, which should not take me long. Ppt91^talk 22:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great research on this, and I'm glad you discovered the COPYVIO. I agree that it may be easier for us to simply start an article on her then start a requested move. I can start a stub on her and we can work on it at our leisure. Netherzone (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stub article started on Emilia Kabakov. Netherzone (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ppt91. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Netherzone (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

PT, were you able to read this article:[2], it was unclear to me if you encountered a paywall. Netherzone (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone Yes! I also saved it as a PDF if you'd like me to forward? Also, the NYRB article ended up being very useful for a few chronological details--thanks again. :-) Ppt91^talk 04:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ppt91,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		Thank you for your superb GA review of the Abel Tasman Monument article. The page's quality has certainly improved through your work. Schwede66 03:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 How kind of you, thanks so much. As I mentioned earlier, it was a real pleasure working together and I look forward to learning more about your future projects. :-) Ppt91^talk 14:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

art of consensus

Thank you for quality articles beginning with

Barbara Stanley (psychologist), Joseph (art model) and Lamentation (School of Lucas Cranach the Elder), for excellent reviewing, for reading consensus well, - you are an awesome Wikipedian

!

@Gerda Arendt This is very generous and thoughtful! Thank you. I am a big fan of your work on music history and hope our paths will cross again soon. :-) Ppt91^talk 01:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You made my day, again! - yesterday was the 150th birthday of Max Reger, mentioned here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

The article 2022 Dallas airshow mid-air collision you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:2022 Dallas airshow mid-air collision for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely understood. If other participating editors are willing to re-write the content and re-nominate it in the future, I'd be happy to participate in the process. This should have never been nominated, to be completely honest, and I wish I had taken a more thorough look at the work of others. :-) Will archive the thread for now. Thanks for putting in the work! Ppt91^talk 21:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Ppt91,

I am Oogglywoogly, the creator of Mike Cahill (golfer). You noted that there are problems on the page and have made a number of tags. I am pretty much done with his page and would like concrete advice on how to improve the page.

The first tag refers to "unclear citation style." Sorry but what do you mean exactly? Most of these citations are from a search engine called newspapers.com - do you want me to "clip" the articles so the reader can see them? The second pertains to length and detail. This, I will admit, may be a legitimate concern as the page is relatively long and other users have noted this. I have skimmed both advisory articles you sent to me. Though I intend to read both of them from start to finish and take notes it would be nice if you could point me to details that are especially relevant to Cahill's page. And with the layout guidelines - sorry but I have no idea what you mean? I feel like I am conforming to all of the other golfer pages on WikiProject Golf.

Any advice would be helpful.

Sincerely,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Oogglywoogly! Thank you for your message. I have a few prior commitments today, but I'd be happy to follow up on my original feedback as soon as I have a moment (hopefully by tomorrow). Ppt91^talk 16:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ppt91,

Thank you for the quick response. When you have a chance, please respond to my original statement.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

@Oogglywoogly Thanks for your patience. Very happy to address theses questions.

The first tag refers to "unclear citation style." Sorry but what do you mean exactly? It may have been somewhat unclear from the tag itself, though I believe (hope) I had clarified in my original message that the issue was primarily with using the name newspapers.com, which is a paid repository and a database, as source title. While you do mention the name of the actual newspaper in each case, adding newspapers.com on top of it makes citations confusing for the reader (

WP:SOURCELINKS

, though if you do, I'd use the via route. It's a question of formatting and consistency more than anything else, which can understandably become challenging when using such a high number of sources.

The second pertains to length and detail. This is certainly a big issue and I recognize it's something that often comes with the territory when one has a vast knowledge of the subject--which you clearly do. I am not quite sure how this can be best addressed other than significantly cutting down on content to avoid

WP:TOPIC

. Perhaps reducing the number of sources even more would be another solution? I know you have already cut some of them, but there is still a tremendous amount of detail that might tire even the more seasoned golf enthusiasts.

And with the layout guidelines my comment and the tag related to how the page ia currently organized in terms of the division of content rather than the section layout itself; for example, subsection Professional career includes over 4100 words without a single subsection break. When you look at the table of contents in the article, the sections seem fine, though they do not, in fact, help you navigate the page, since most of the page is concentrated in a single, very long subsection. Per

MOS:BODY

, sections are meant to "enhance the readability of the article," which is why I had tagged it with a layout issue. Given you want to retain the section titles as they are now, per WP Golf, it seems that drastically reducing word count is probably the most effective (though I realize certainly not the easiest) solution. Finally, I think that images, even if just a few, would be welcome.

I hope I've addressed everything--please do let me know if I left anything out or if you have any other questions. And good luck! Ppt91^talk 03:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ppt91.

Thanks for the response. I'll check out the relevant rules when I have more time (probably on Friday). For the citations issue, could you provide me an example of a newspapers.com citation (or any related citation) that is done well on Wikipedia? I think that would be very helpful. Likewise, with the length and detail issues (clearly the biggest issues on the page) I'll go over the Wiki rules later in the week.

Re sections: I actually have used subheadings before with a number of golfers. Usually I change the subheading when they change tours or start playing on a senior tour. But in Cahill's case there is no clear demarcation within his professional career so it's far harder.

If you could briefly respond that would be great. Again, I'll make to look over the rules in detail later in the week and will get back to you then.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

@

WP:SOURCELINKS

and not include the depository at all, but it's up to you.

As for the sections, I would think about some aspects of his professional career that you can either summarize or skip altogether. To give an example: just one decade of his career is covered in 5 substantial paragraphs with minute details, including many of his own quotes, which could probably be summarized in 2 paragraphs tops, even if it means focusing on fewer competitions and other events. Also, you could consider adding subsection titles to divide it up into periods. Ppt91^talk 19:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ppt91,

I have made a number of edits relating to length, detail, and citations on Cahill's page. I would like to know your thoughts.

Thanks!

Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

@ Ppt91, I am done with edits for the page of Mike Cahill (golfer). I would like to know your thoughts.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

@Oogglywoogly Sorry about my delay--will take a look whenever I have a moment and get back to you tomorrow latest. :-) Ppt91^talk 19:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tamzin -- Tamzin (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Netherzone (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone Thank you! I always appreciate a nice note from you. Also, I wanted to mention that I looked at the list of Native American women article suggestions you sent and would love to see how I can help in the near future. Unfortunately, I've been a bit swamped with several projects outside of en-wiki lately, though that sounds like really important work. Either way, please keep me posted on how the project develops! :-) Ppt91^talk 17:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

regarding bludgeoning; it is off-point, but worthwhile in terms of relating your perception. For I am trying, at the BLP page in question, to persuade no one—rather, I am trying to arrive at a final conclusion, there, myself (see my last comment). The invitation in the repeat places was indeed what it seems—an invitation for people to clarify (as one has since done) that they see all three criteria being met, and so still stand by their argument. The question was asked because so often people toss in WP: guideline and policy references without full addressing what they actually fully and truly say. One editor, without prompting, parsed the three criteria, and that encouraged and intrigued me, and so I asked others citing that WP: standard, to look to it and do the same. If bludgeoning, it was of the professorial (almost Socratic) type, and rather than a Potterian "bludger", was done with feather pillow or the like. Cheers, all the best, and thanks for the warning about perceptions. 2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am married to an art historian who did their doctoral work on Cranach, with long archival periods spent in (what was then) East Germany, along the Eisenach-Erfurt-Weimar-Jena corridor. 2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 Thanks for you reply and glad to hear about a scholarly (spousal) connection. :-) (I've been trying to get some more recent scholarship to use in Lamentation (School of Lucas Cranach the Elder) and would always welcome suggestions.)

As for the discussion, I completely understand where you're coming from, though the problem with AfDs is that they tend to devolve into extensive debates, especially when it's a contentious topic. While I appreciate how receptive you are to the nuances of this situation, I would say that AfD is not the right place to go back and forth regarding policies. As

WP:AFDDISCUSS

suggests, it is best to make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves rather than adding multiple comments and repeatedly responding to others (even if it is cordial). None of this, of course, is criticism of your clearly thorough and analytical take on the subject.

ps. have you considered registering? It looks like you could be a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia! Ppt91^talk 21:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article

The article Joseph (art model) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joseph (art model) for comments about the article, and Talk:Joseph (art model)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tamzin -- Tamzin (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article would make for a particularly interesting

"Did you know", by the way. Since it'd be (AFAICT) your first nomination, it'd be "free", no quid-pro-quo review required. Could do either a serious fact like "... that Théodore Géricault's paintings of Haitian-born model Joseph are unusual in portraying him as 'an actual, distinct person'?", or something a bit quirkier like "... that Joseph may have been shipwrecked three times on The Raft of the Medusa?" Further possibilities abound! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Tamzin That's a great suggestion. And let me reiterate my thanks for all your help with the article and for making the review process so welcoming! :-) Ppt91^talk 13:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this article! It was a really interesting read, and a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a much better article now, so I thank you for that. Regarding the failure of the article, I have trouble understanding what more I could have done. The other reviews I have had were very specific, and in this one there were many general comments which I have completed to the best of my understanding. You said you have not heard from me in a while, but your last message to me was just two days ago (April 13) when you said I just made some extensive edits to the lead and the History section. If I may, I think it'll be much easier I go through the rest of the article myself and ping you when I am done. While it's closer to GA and the bulk of the information is there, there's still stuff that needs to be fixed and I think it would be much more time consuming to again list these suggestions here. So I assumed you would have some further comments or instruction, but instead the article was failed. I was willing to do everything in my power to satisfy the requirements. Thank you for your time. Bruxton (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton Thanks for your message and I am glad to know you think the article is much better now than it was before. I am, however, very surprised by the rest of your reaction. I had put in a great deal of work into the review, going far beyond GAR expectations, and have been patient and understanding with your process. Yes, last time I pinged you was two days ago, but that was after I had already responded regarding the additional article which you had trouble accessing. I also placed multiple tags throughout the article over the last week, which have sat there unaddressed for days. And that was after I had made detailed comments regarding content, which I felt were just rushed over to get the review done and promote the article to GA, which is not the point.

I was happy to keep the review open for a while, but I also didn't feel comfortable making such extensive edits (I rewrote the entire History section, because it gave very little context for where this kind of work originated from and who he was as an artist, despite my earlier suggestions) and given your silence, I simply assumed you put this on the back-burner and focused on other projects. At that point, keeping it open would mean rewriting much more than GAR really calls for, which is why I closed it.

Frankly, I wasn't really expecting this kind of message from you. It makes it seem like it was the GA icon, rather than the quality of content that mattered. And after so much effort, it just rubs me the wrong way that I have to spend time explaining myself. Ppt91^talk 23:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your review was appreciated. I am on Wikipedia all day every day and this review began March 9. I have kept checking back at the GA review. I have no other GAs in the pipeline so this one has had my full attention. I was excited to take the article to this level, and not for the icon, but I want to write great articles. I have only nominated articles that I thought could get to GA. My previous reviews have been extremely specific, and this one was more general. Two days ago I read that you wanted to edit the article to speed things so I thought we were working toward the same goal. But then the article was failed today. It was shocking to have a failure because I would have done anything which was specifically required in order to make the article better. I will continue to edit the article, I am doing so now, and then I will renominate it. It might be that you and I just did not connect and maybe I will connect with another reviewer. Bruxton (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton To say it was a "failure" is a hyperbole; that an article was failed during a review does not mean it is without merit. Rather, it's just a procedure, which can easily be repeated when ready. You seem to look at this process primarily from your own perspective with a bit too much hubris, i.e. being upset with me that the nomination hasn't succeeded rather than trying to understand where I might be coming from as a reviewer. It's obvious you want to create great content, and you have in many cases done exactly that, but your grudge seems entirely misplaced. I've done my best to be respectful, even with my final review note, and I can't say the same about you, even now with your "did not connect" bit. I see today that you have addressed all of the outstanding issues, including tags, and you have re-nominated the article, so I assume the next GAR will progress quickly. Perhaps when it does, you'll be able to actually appreciate my input and work. Ppt91^talk 20:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you feel I have been harsh. I have repeatedly thanked you for your work. I work in DYK as a promotor, and it is often my own reviews of articles and checks of submitted nominations which can hold up nominations. I know it is not the same, but sometimes it can take months to pass a nomination - but I do everything in my power to assist the nominator and get the article through the process. I do not ever reject a submission when I have a willing nominator and a suitable article. With this GA review I have never pushed back against anything that you have suggested or that I understood. Without warning or notice you closed the nomination, and now you seem to be angry with me for being dismayed. I have no grudge against you and i do not think this is hubris; I was just surprised. I have already moved on, and I have just started two more articles related to this painting. Please do not take it personal. Bruxton (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:WPVA editors and we could benefit from teamwork. If I come across a future nomination of yours, and I hope you will not be vehemently opposed to working together, I'll make sure to communicate better and that the outcome is constructive. Ppt91^talk 21:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

No worries or animosity on my part. I can tell you are a valuable editor. Bruxton (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
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) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ppt91,

Thankyou for taking the time to review my article for the Museum of Oxford. This is the first ever time that someone has provided me with a comprehensive review of one of my articles and I am grateful that you took the time to look over it. Best wishes, The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The History Wizard of Cambridge. I appreciate your note and please feel free to let me know if I can be of any help as you continue to improve the article. It's a very interesting subject. Good luck with your work! Ppt91^talk 01:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Stazewski Grey White Relief 2 1962.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Stazewski Grey White Relief 2 1962.jpeg. 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) 17:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Stazewski Relief 18 1967.jpeg. 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) 17:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the artist now, and made some changes regarding image placement. Revert what you don't like. I tried to avoid "sandwiching" of text and displacement of headers. I suggest to split the two images that are now combined, and in general to shorten the image captions. I don't think it should look like a picture book where you get the whole story by following the captions ;) - The lead is on the (over-)detailed side of the FACs I've seen. I have no time to study the article in detail, but what I saw looks fine. You might go ahead with a peer review and see what others think. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt Thank you very much! I appreciate your taking the time to do this. I know you've been busy with a lot of FAC work recently and it is really kind of you to help. In the meantime, I had a chance to talk to @Ceoil who went through the content from an art historical standpoint, providing very helpful feedback, and mentioned that it might be a good idea to give FAC a try. :-) Ppt91^talk 18:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but still think that - especially before a first FAC - a peer review is a good idea, - a bit more relaxed, and a chance to hear other voices. If nobody shows up - which happens - nothing is lost. We don't have to press for a certain date, or do we? - Another recommendation: review other FACs, to get known and to get a feeling for the others. For example CBS Building. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. There is no rush on my end. I'll do that and see what people say. :-) Ppt91^talk 18:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gerda (who has bailed me out a nr of times on image placement), esp. that reviewing other FACs is the best way not to let the eventual nom die in the wilderness for lack of engagement. The 2nd time is easier (well, only slightly :)) Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ppt91, the GA nominator Sinopecynic hasn't replied since 16 April and hasn't edited anything since 21 April. They've addressed all the structural issues; it's debatable whether "main" links strictly need to be added (my personal preference for subsidiary articles, with an attached summary paragraph or two, in a separate subsection), but they've added simple wikilinks to the split-off articles. That leaves the half-dozen "Minor details" which I'd not want to fail anything for. Would you like to finish off the GA? Otherwise, I could at a pinch say that since this was +/- minor I'd do it as reviewer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ppt91, I happened to be downtown yesterday and shot a few photos of LN Plaza. They are cell phone pix, not professional images, but thought they might work as a gallery for the article. I've gone ahead added a gallery section and think it looks ok - if you think it's too much feel free to delete. It's a very nice article on an important woman artist, and altho I've been to the site numerous times, your article made me look at the sculptures themselves differently. Thanks for your work on improving the visual arts on Wikipedia! Netherzone (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm pretty sure it's OK to use images of outdoor public art as "freedom of panorama", but I noticed one of the existing images in the article is up for deletion. If these get nominated, there is an editor who is experienced in image use policies I can ask for assistance and information. Netherzone (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone Wow, this was such a pleasant surprise! Thank you. I was going to take some photos myself, but have been so preoccupied with other stuff and am really happy to see these. I removed the other contentious one you mentioned in favor of your gallery. Also, I don't believe there is a case to be made here about any copyright infringement. The plaza did originally open in 1977 (before being renamed in 1978), which means the sculptures themselves are in the clear. Again, thanks so much! :-) Ppt91^talk 17:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joseph (art model), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Théodore Géricault's paintings of Haitian-born model Joseph (example pictured) are unusual in portraying him as "an actual, distinct person"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph (art model). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Joseph (art model)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do I add a citation for an addition in the “in popular culture” section? None of the other entries in this section have citations. What makes mine removable compared to them? Thelastohioan (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and congratulations on the DYK and the GA status - it's wonderful to see Joseph on the main page! It reminded me that I had recently seen a show at the Tate Britain on the Rossetti's and there was a section of the show on models of color from that time period that zeroed in on one of Dante Gabriel Rossetti works, The Beloved, and his studies using various models for the painting. I shot several photos of this section of the show - would they be of interest to you? If so, I'll upload them or email them to you along with the wall texts. Best regards, and as always thank you for your excellent contributions. Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone Always a pleasure to hear from you, and thank you so much. I'd be very curious to learn more about the work, which looks fascinating. Please do feel free to send the pictures! Email is great. :) What are you working on these days? I am trying to get Abstract art into better shape, though it's a big project and I'd love to hear your thoughts and whether you'd be interested in improving the article (I left some preliminary thoughts on the talk page there). I hope you're staying well. Ppt91^talk 20:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ppt91. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Netherzone (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]