Talk:Cherryl Fountain

Material removed from the article
The following material has been removed from the article by another editor. I have copied it here because its content is important in the appreciation of the areas of development covered by this artist. Some of the titles listed here were created in response to the two bursaries, which involved work in Italy and Spain. This evidence of Italian and Spanish work is not covered in the rest of the article. There is also evidence of family portraits and of works influenced by the local Kent environment. Storye book (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

On 28 occasions, between 1975 and 2013, Fountain's work was accepted for show at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions. The exhibits were: drawing 164 Cottage Windowsill (1975); oil 144 Cowslips in a Kentish Landscape, oil 646 Mother Knitting in the Kitchen Corner, oil 1167 Elders in the Aviary (1976); oil 988 Summer Garden (1977); linocut 719 Borth Collection (1976); oil 1135 Perugian View From Assisi To San Domenico (1979); oil 977 Broadstairs Beach, oil 1116 Perugia, the Aqueduct and Via Appia (1980); oil 470 Skull and Witchesbroom oil 1126 Perugia Pigeons above Via Acquedotto (1981); watercolour 249 Gardens from the Aquaduct, Perugia, oil 1188 Albert's Wistaria, Harry's Irisis, oil 1474 Old Estate Cottages, Lees Court (1982); watercolour 164 Burgos, watercolour 208 Perugia View From the Primavera, oil 1116 Boy With Rabbit (1983); oil 1235 Cottage Gardens (1984); watercolour 731 Cuenca Still Life (1985); pva 601 Indian Summer in a Kent Garden (1986); oil 148 After Chelsea, oil 224 San Pedro from the Posada Garden, Cuenca, oil 260 San Pedro from the Posada Garden, Cuenca, Spain (1987); oil 1040 Julian: The Collector (1988); oil 437 Breakfast Time (1989); oil 344 Ancient And Modern (1990); pva 989 Spring in the Lime Walk (1992); watercolour 731 Cottage Garden, Sissinghurst (1993); pva 298 Actea to Assam (1994); watercolour 710 Consider the Lilies (1996); watercolour 972 From East to West (1997); watercolour 764 This Year Jerusalem (2000); watercolour 610 It's a Colourful Life (2001); pva New Beginnings (2002); watercolour 543 Sky High (2003); watercolour 513 A Time to Sow (2004); watercolour 544 Gardener's Alphabet (2011); watercolour 1120 Lonely Hearts Club (2013). According to Kent Online, Fountain exhibited in 2006 also.

Works include the Baptismal Roll for Selling Church, Kent and portraits of Nigel Nicholson and Claire Palley. Work for the National Trust Foundation for Art includes projects at Sissinghurst Castle Garden, Nymans, Stoneacre, Barrington Court and Mompesson House. In 2013 she created a backdrop for Jim Marshall's Malmaison Carnations exhibit, which won a gold medal at the Hampton Court Flower Show. At the 2015 Chelsea Flower Show, Fountain produced backdrops for Irises bred by Cedric Morris, for the Howard Nurseries' gold medal exhibit in the Grand Pavilion.

Discussion

 * Yes, I removed a large amount of superfluous material from the article. First of all I am surprised that you have the autopatrolled bit, since the article had around a dozen defects when I came to it: no talk page, no wikiprojects, no ratings, no authority control, no defaultsort. Secondly there was a large image gallery of "visual influences" made up of images from the local area. That is clearly original research. The external links section contained blogspot.com, an ebay image (!) and an amazon.com link. I count nine problems so far...


 * Further, the group shows material above is just not that important. It suffices to say she was in the 26 shows. One does not need to know their titles. I have also removed the commissions section, which is a list of backdrops that she painted for other people on contract. The sourcing amounts to her web site, a garden company and a couple of one-line mentions in obscure garden show periodicals. SO that makes eleven errors by my count. There are others; see the article history. I would suggest running something like this through AFC in future.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I always put the wikiprojects on the talk page as soon as I can, but you did that (35 minutes after article publication) while I was still fixing the What Links Here aspect, and I did that immediately after I published the article. There are some things which one has to do one by one immediately after publishing the article, and I was in the process of doing that. So please don't attempt to reprimand me for not setting up the wikiproject templates before publishing the article. How dare you. I have published over 100 articles over the last decade or so, this is the first time I've seen anyone jump to the conclusion that I wasn't doing that fast enough. If you care to check my other published articles (excluding the first few perhaps), you will see that the talk page has always been done on the same day as the article publication. I think that is very rude behaviour on your part. Please stop that. I have suffered enough bullying on Wikipedia in the past, and I am sick of it. I have never been asked to do authority control or defaultsort. All you needed to do was to inform me that it is some kind of offence not to do that, with a link to the appropriate rule page. That is how to deal with things without rudeness. Regarding the links to the images of pictures - that is what they were - just links to pictures. The problem with blogs is that people tell lies, but the pictures are just pictures, and the fact that they are blogs doesn't make any difference. If I am wrong about that, then fair enough, but a polite discussion would have sorted that out. I do not agree with you about the titles of works which you have removed from the article. They are independent artworks, and there is no evidence to say that they are not. All or most of the Old Master portrait painters produced portraits by commission. No-one dismisses them as "just work" unless there is some issue of quality. I don't agree that only exhibitions count as art, or that only exhibitions can be included in an artist biography. It looks to me as if your comments on this talk page are an attempt to initiate some sort of edit war. Well, sorry, I'm not biting. If that point from you about AFC is meant to be an insult, then frankly, that is not the way to behave here. If you cannot be nice, please do not attempt to contact me again. Storye book (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the errors above as my take is that the article puffs up this person's accomplishments. The commissions section (painting backdrops for displays at garden shows?) is an effort to make something routine and unimportant into something important. Another example of the puffery is that the lede cites that she has been accepted to 26 editions of the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition. That is a show that takes 1000 artists a year. It's a small accomplishment that does not particularly represent critical recognition. In fact that is what is missing here: it's a long article that does not include much of any sourcing that is critical commentary, unless I have missed it. The sourcing here is from items like garden shows, old birth certificate databases and mentions in small newspapers. I think this would actually survive AfD, as she is in one collection. However it is pretty clear that she's a more or less run of the mill painter. Any of my edits, which were triggered by the addition of her name to the list of contemporary artists (which she does not meet the list criteria for) are meant to reduce the puffery. Finally, if you have created 100 articles you should know by now that the section titled "some rural influences" is original research on your part and entirely unacceptable. I'm not sure if you know her or not, and I wonder how you could know that the given images would be visual influences in her work? It seems entirely made up. If you are going to include made up original research in your articles, then yes, AFC is a good idea. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For the second time, please do not talk to me. I find you offensive. Your insults to the subject of the biography and to me are also causing me distress. Storye book (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the article talk page, and it's where editors talk about the problems with the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not a place for you to bully me. Of course the given images are not visual influences - how could they be? It is you who made that up. The point is that the artist's work frequently represents local rural matters (e.g. farming, flowers etc.) and the artist has a rural background. That is the connection. Because many readers are not in Britain and do not know what rural Kent looks like, I put the pictures in for those readers: the rural environment influences the rural subjects of the art - and this is what that part of Kent looks like, i.e. rural. So for the second time, please do not talk to me. I find your wilful misunderstanding offensive. Your insults to the subject of the biography and to me are also causing me distress. Storye book (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You as a regular user cannot ban editors from article talk pages. If you do not want to interact here, do not reply. The rural influences section is something you made up on your own to add to the article. in any case it need not be discussed as I have removed it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * and also Perhaps it would be better for editors to say "the article this, or the article that", versus personalizing the comments by saying "you this and you that". I think this would be more neutral, as the article is the main point. It is often difficult to express the "tone" of our comments, on WP, so I think we should err on the side of neutrality. Thanks.  Tribe of Tiger  Let's Purrfect!  04:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I think that it must be a bit of a tender and vulnerable moment, when one has just published a new article. A bit of diplomacy or even human kindness, will go a long way towards encouraging other editors in their work.  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  04:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to archive this section because I'm concerned about contentious stuff being written about a living person that could be potentially hurtful to another human being. Alternatively, in order to keep this relatively new discussion on the page, I'd like to redact the offending wording. This is wording which was part of a discussion about notability. The notability has now been resolved by adding the Collections section to the article, so the contentious parts of the conversation are no longer needed. The wording at issue is: "backdrops ... routine and unimportant;" "26 editions of the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition ... It's a small accomplishment that does not particularly represent critical recognition."; "it is pretty clear that she's a more or less run of the mill painter." I have no problem with the rest of the Discussion section remaining on the page. Thank you for reading this. Storye book (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think you should redact other editors contributions. WP:TPO is clear about this: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." The same guideline points out that removing prohibited material is appropriate, but that does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil. I think this discussion does not meet that threshold. As for "potentially hurtful to another human being"; I think you're referring to the subject. I don't see why the subject should be shielded from the potential harm that might come from a discussion about their notability. It occurred to me when I read the first version of the article that such a discussion might be necessary. I think that by now, notability has been established. Archiving it seems fine to me, because the issues that were raised have largely been addressed. Vexations (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs to be archived. She is in two collections, yes, but I've seen little critical commentary on her work. These kinds of comments (backdrops ... routine and unimportant) happen all the time in AfD discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing
Not sure that sourcing is strong enough to show notability here. I have looked for other sources but can't find anything to add. I can see she has work in the NT Collection and in MOMA Machynlleth, which helps towards criterion 4 of WP:ARTIST. Not sure that this adds up to "several notable galleries or museums". A couple of things on the page worry me a bit: the original research in the references to BMD data, some irrelevant info like the "best shoots", the quotes sourced to the subject's website, and some poor sources (eg current numbers 12 and 33). Wondering if notability is not yet met and this is WP:TOOSOON. Tacyarg (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I had the same thoughts about her notability, but as far as I can see she is in at least two museum collections, meaning she meets WP:NARTIST 4(d): "been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess my thought was does two = several? But I'd trust your views on this, I know you have done a lot of work on art-related articles. Tacyarg (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Several" is intentionally vague to prevent gaming of the system. If you nominated it for AfD I might !vote delete, but I would have to look into the collections in more depth. I have the sense that the article would be OK if it were half as long. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Why the rush?
I don't understand what is happening here. Why are people coming in to a brand new article that the creator is still actively working on? They may actually have a plan for continuing to develop it. Why not just add it to your watchlist and check on it in a few days, if you have concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs)
 * As the creator of this article, the above behaviour has been a problem for me. One of the main problems is that I feel that I now can no longer edit the article. I have tried a couple of times but they just reverted it. I have more material and am still researching, and I have ideas to improve the article, including improvements prompted by the above discussion, but I feel that If I were to edit the article page, my work would just be reverted, and it would leave me feeling as if I had stepped into an edit war which I don't want to be associated with. I am considering userfying the original article, improving it as I have described, and then copying the whole thing onto this talkpage, as I now feel too scared to attempt to put it on the article page where it belongs. I am also considering archiving the above discussion, which contains offensive and unnecessary judgemental statements like "small accomplishment" and "run of the mill painter." WP guidelines demand that living subjects of biographies be treated with respect. There are no citations for her being "run of the mill" or producing "small accomplishments", so these are insults to the subject of the biography which WP does not allow. If I archive the discussion which contains the insults to the artist, it will then not be sitting in the face of the artist or her family, should they or their friends, representatives and acquaintances look at the talk page. Storye book (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Update The discussion referred to in my previous comment has now been archived. Storye book (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

 * The article is not "damaged and depleted". Note that to replace the damaged article in a few days as a complete replacement of the existing article requires discussion and consensus.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Expansion of article 3 October 2020
The edit summary of the above expansion is: "Replacing article as explained on the DYK nomination template. I have been at great pains to reproduce every positive contribution previously made by all previous editors. Special care has been taken not to lose citations. This is an ongoing improvement with more and better citations coming soon. So please discuss on talkpage before making non-minor edits to content. Thank you." Storye book (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I should add that I have taken great care to take into serious consideration and to do my best to satisfy all comments made in previous talkpage discussions and edit summaries, including those which were contentious. This is a well-intentioned expansion, and is based on extensively revisited research and on new research. This research is ongoing, and more and better citations should arrive soon. For this reason, please discuss non-minor editing of content here, so that we can exchange explanations and avoid misunderstanding. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please explain the removal of the link to Gamekeepers in the United Kingdom? If you compare that article with the Professional hunter article (where "gamekeeper" redirects) you'll see that they are two different entities. The British version is the background environment of the artist's work. The other version (professional hunter) is most certainly not the background to the artist's work. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We only link to the first instance of the term, I deleted the second time it was used. Theroadislong (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I had not noticed that the other link remained. Meanwhile, please would you kindly discuss before removing content? The content that you just removed was not "trumpery" as you called it. It was a well-intentioned attempt to explain the meaning of "backdrop", which was misunderstood by an editor previously. You have also removed a link to a photo of one of the backdrops, which was there to help that editor understand what the work really was. I am trying to improve understanding here, to keep the article stable. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please will you not removed content without discussion. What are your grounds for saying that the citation is a primary source, and what are your grounds for saying that the fact that an artist teaches art in the community is not notable? What sort of teaching would be notable, and is there a WP rule for this? Storye book (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You appear to have WP:OWNERSHIP issues. We are all here to improve articles. Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the content "She taught the Tanners Street Painters Group at the Faversham Almshouses, Faversham, until 2019." because it was sourced to their own website and it is not notable, because Tanners Street Painters Group is not a notable group, ie it has no Wikipedia page. Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is helpful. It really helps to discuss before changing content, and I appreciate your reply. Storye book (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I appreciate that you have put a lot of work into the article. I do think it is too long in its current format. I don't really see the point of listing so many works in the RA Summer Exhibition section. Is it to show how much work she has had included? If so I would prefer to see a link to a source stating this (you do have some references mentioning "23 years of exhibiting" and so on, so perhaps could cut to those?). I think the inclusion of so much detail makes it difficult for readers to find out what they need or want to know. Similarly with the photographs at the start - we may have to agree to disagree about this, as I know you have previously stated that you think they are important to understanding the context of this artist's work. They might perhaps be better as a gallery nearer the end of the article, so they don't interrupt the flow of the reader finding out about this artist.
 * I would also like to see fewer references to sources that may not be reliable. The current version has 28 references to the artist's own site. I appreciate that you have backed these up with other sources, so I would like to see the references to the artist's site trimmed when not needed (I did this for a couple of references in an earlier version, which you have reverted, so again we may have to disagree about this). I also think some of the other sources are possibly not independent or reliable - Produced in Kent, for instance, is a marketing publication I think; Chappel Galleries is a commercial site; so is Burstow and Hewett.
 * I'd like to see the quotes cut to that first very striking review by John Ward, as long as there is a reliable source - the others don't really add anything in my view.
 * Basically I think there are the bones of a good, shorter, article here, and I think keeping it in this version is going to cause endless frustration to you. Other editors will read some of this, fairly or not, as "puffery", and remove it.
 * Best wishes, and thanks for your work on this article. Tacyarg (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with all you have said, there is a very good article in here somewhere, but it's currently somewhat overwhelmed. Theroadislong (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There appears to be WP:OWN issues by, as mentioned by Theroadislong above. They ask repeatedly now that any changes be discussed, but what actually happened earlier today is that they replaced the entire article, which had been edited by at least half a dozen people, with their own version without asking. The article history has been broken twice now, as Storye book edits their preferred version in user space, and then copy/pastes it here, losing the edit history. Their new "bold" version has lots of problems, but not much is going to happen until the ownership issues are solved.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I spoke too soon, as edits by Theroadislong and myself have been successful in cleaning up the article. It's now in pretty good shape at about 30K, vs the 45K it was earlier today.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You know what would be really cool? What would be really cool would be editors taking into account the fact some people are a bit more sensitive to criticism and assertiveness than others and oh, maybe, considering being kinder to those people instead of just going in with a "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" attitude. Congratulations; because you aren't willing to maybe just be a little kinder to someone like that, you've chased a well-intentioned editor away. Nice work. —valereee (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's terrible. Regardless of what has happened with this article, and some really unfortunate interaction between editors at AN/I, there is no way in which an editor leaving the project because they don't feel safe is a desirable outcome. That's appalling. Can we please all agree that is safe here and commit to making sure that they can feel safe as well? Storye book can then perhaps agree that dragging people to AN/I isn't the best way to make people feel safe either. As far as I know the folks here, everyone is dedicated to improving Wikipedia. Vexations (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree, ANI is usually a terrible idea, and for multiple reasons. And I've been encouraging this editor to try to ignore criticisms and assertive styles. I just think it kind of sucks that you have to have a thick skin to edit Wikipedia. It loses us well-intentioned editors, and I think it loses us diversity too. —valereee (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my part in this. I've been aware of Storye book's editing as part of WiR for a while, and I value that content creation. Tacyarg (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I wish to be helpful and supportive of the article....
I hope my edits are acceptable, as I wish to be helpful and supportive of this article. I have rearranged some items (sources intact), so that the sections and info are chronological and grouped together. For example, all Education facts should be together, etc. etc. Also, as a reader, I found it difficult to comprehend long sections, such as the Solo & two person exhibition section and the Group exhibition Section. So many items, strung together in a sentence format are difficult to read, so I have converted to a list format. Some additional formatting changes in regards to semi-colons and years, may be desired or required, but now the reader can more easily understand the information presented. Thanks for allowing me to assist.  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  03:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks much better, thanks for your help, though I'm still not sure that "Fountain is a churchwarden at Badlesmere and Leaveland Churches, where she organises the flower festival each year" belongs here? Theroadislong (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I trust your judgement...is this not “personal enough” so to speak, or it an insignificant fact, or both? Thinking out loud here. Teach me, please, as you have kindly done before.... Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  21:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like trivia to me, but I suppose there is no doubting that it is personal. Theroadislong (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is trivia. Imagine if we listed in every biography the church and community groups that someone belonged to.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , . Ha! You both make very good points, thanks for “teaching” me! I have now removed the entire section. Your pithy comments made me smile and chuckle, not sure if you intended to be humorous, as well as informative. Nonetheless, I had a good laugh...at myself! Thanks, my friends,  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  23:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Am a friend of Cherryl Fountain from Reading.Think it’s great you are researching and writing about Cherryl. SVM1950 (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Awards section
Eight of the awards are sourced to her own website, it would be great to find some secondary sources for these, though I admit I am struggling in this respect. Theroadislong (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I noticed issues in the awards section as well; that most of them were sourced to her own website. Also noticed that more than half of them are from the time she was a student. From my understanding, we don't normally include things like student scholarships and student awards, esp. for someone who is no longer an emerging artist, and especially not things like "second place". With all due respect to the artist and article creator, it seems like filler, not something normally included in an encylopedia. Also the Christmas card award seems superfluous. Netherzone (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I don't want to be the one to upset the article creator and remove it! Theroadislong (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I too am afraid that I might get drama boarded if I make the edit; but will do it if there is consensus. Below are the awards currently in the article, followed by rationale on which should be kept and which deleted.
 * 1975, Royal Academy Creswick Landscape Prize. Delete, still a student. Sourced to artists' website.
 * 1975, Relief Painting Prize. Delete, still a student. Sourced to artists' website.
 * 1975, Worshipful Company of Painter-Stainers bursary, Freedom of the Company and the City. Delete, still a student.
 * 1975, 1976 and 1977 David Murray Studentship, for the furtherance of landscape painting. Delete, still a student. Sourced to artists' website.
 * 1976, Richard Jack Portrait Prize. Delete, still a student. Sourced to artists' website.
 * 1977, Second prize in the Turner Gold Medal. Delete, still a student, second place. Sourced to artists' website.
 * 1977, British Institution Drawing Award. Delete, still a student.
 * 1978, Greenshields Foundation Award for Painting. Keep, notable award. Needs better citation is sourced to artists' website.
 * 1986, Royal Academy Christmas Card Prize. Delete, trivia sourced to artists' website.
 * 1991, Abbott and Holder Travel Award, Royal Watercolour Society. Keep, needs better citation, is sourced to artists' website.
 * 2017, St Cuthberts Mill Award "for outstanding watercolour work," Society of Botanical Artists, for Benton Susan and Springs Lease. Keep. Referenced.
 * 2019, Certificate of Exhibiting Excellence for "the most inspiring use of colour", Society of Botanical Artists, for The Beauty and the Beast. Keep. Referenced.

That would leave four awards, which seems reasonable. Please comment on the proposed edit. Netherzone (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed that all sounds perfectly logical and reasonable and would be a big improvement of the article. Theroadislong (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback. I will wait another day or two to let others weigh in with their thoughts as well. Netherzone (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am on record, here on the talkpage, as being supportive of the article/creator, and earlier, I converted/formatted the awards to a bulleted format. However, I absolutely agree with ‘s proposed edit, and thank them for the analysis. It seems to me that listing four truly notable awards is best, otherwise they are lost amongst the sea of lesser awards. Count me in, on this proposed improvement, which not only follows WP standards, but “honours” the artist.  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  23:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback. I've made the edits. If anyone objects, they can be undone. Netherzone (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)