User talk:Bear-rings

Mediterranean Sea
Whether you approve or not, Northern Cyprus exists. Yes, it is only recognised by Turkey, but it exists and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore it provides information. Please do not revert information you don't like. If you want, you can start a discussion of the article's talk page. Denisarona (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion has begun, as a courtesy you would have expected the end, I am canceling your version pending reviews of other contributors. Bear-rings (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marabou (ethnicity), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, OK is corrected. Many thanks. Bear-rings (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Marine resources conservation
You changed the title of Marine conservation to "Marine resources conservation". Unless you are sure that a title change will not be controversial (because, for example, the original title contained a typo) you should seek consensus before the change on the article talk page. I have reverted your change, which is certainly controversial, and given my reasons here. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, my response is on the talk page for this article. Bear-rings (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Kelp forest
Please slow down and think more carefully about the edits you are making. For example, what were you thinking when you made these edits? Those changes were unhelpful, and I reverted them. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is perhaps unnecessary for you, and for the readers? Bear-rings (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Laminariales is only a redirection of kelp, so there is a useless duplicate. Bear-rings (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's a reasonable point. Laminariales redirects to Kelp because "kelp" is the common name for the taxonomic order Laminariales. Why have you unlinked the genera Laminaria? And why have you reverted my reversion without allowing the discussion here to run its course? --Epipelagic (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And why you have reverted Marine resources conservation before establishing a discussion ? Bear-rings (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because you did not establish a discussion before you changed the title. It is you who is changing the status quo, not me. Read WP:BRD carefully and stop being so combative. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk:Marine conservation: Title change = --Epipelagic (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC). And here, Marine resources conservation = --Epipelagic (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC). Bear-rings (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's incoherent, as was your response here. You still haven't read WP:BRD, have you? --Epipelagic (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Panavia Tornado
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Panavia Tornado. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Twinjet is exact term. Bear-rings (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * But it's bad grammatically, as twin-engine is usually used in this context. Per WP:PIPE, "Piped links are useful for preserving the grammatical structure and flow of a sentence when ... the wording of the exact link title does not fit in context." That is the case here. I just checked, and Twin-engine does redirect to Twinjet, so that may be the better solution. - BilCat (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I realized my mistake, it must be possible to place a direct link like this [Twinjet|Twin-engine] ? Bear-rings (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Redirects
Hi, Bear-rings. I just wanted to point out that your edit at Pacific plate was unnecessary. Redirects in articles are fine most of the time, and you probably have other things to do with the time it takes to "fix" them. To read more about why, go to WP:DONOTFIXIT. Cheers! — Gorthian (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you very much. Bear-rings (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Plural redirects
Regarding your 3 September 2016 edit to the article Mangrove: While it is often preferable to add the plural directly after the link (for example, links). The template directs editors to not replace these redirected links with a simpler link unless the page is updated for another reason (see WP:NOTBROKEN). See Halophytes and Template:R from plural. --Bejnar (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Inference. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Inference shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As already advised, please read WP:NOTBROKEN. If you have any reason why this does not apply to this particular link, then please explain why on the article talk: page. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Star type article titles
I see you have consistently renamed the articles for star types along the lines of "Supergiant star" rather than just supergiant. How about "Supergiant (star)"? This would follow WP:COMMONNAME in using the most widely known term as the title of the article, but still allow for consistency and clarity (since titles like dwarf and giant cannot be used as-is for star types). Article_titles specifically specifies the use of parenthetical terms for disambiguation (eg. Mercury (planet)). Template:Star might be a good guide to where the most widely-used title has the word star in in or not (eg. Wolf-Rayet star vs White Dwarf). I also noticed there is no Main Sequence star article, curious. Lithopsian (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion seems correct, if you wish, rename related articles on the model: Supergiant (star). Cordially. Bear-rings (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirects are preferred
I noticed a few edits you did lately on the pascal (unit) page inserting piped links where there were already redirects. Please read the Manual_of_Style/Linking to see why this is not the preferred solution. Ulflund (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: : Please stop doing this. previously involved all-around smart guy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain this: "redir. to set theory". It has already been reverted. If I'd seen it, I'd have reverted it too. It's not only a redirect to that page, it's a redirect to the relevant section within that page. It has value as a link. It has value as a link, even though set theory (in general) was already linked on that page. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And now you're just edit-warring . We're still waiting for an explanation. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you explain this one?
 * Yes, changing the link "tropical moist broadleaf forest" to "tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests" avoids a redirect (a worthless goal). But when it then produces a sentence, " tropical rainforests are a type of tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests" then that's just plain wrong. Apart from the introduced and grammatically incorrect plural, it now states that tropical rainforests are a type of subtropical forest. They are not. They have similarities, but that is not the same thing. Getting rid of a redirect (and still a worthless goal), to make a now incorrect statement is not an improvement at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

More information on when to use piping and when not can be found at WP:SPECIFICLINK and WP:NOPIPE. Paradoctor (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Conflicts with other editors
Editors on Wikipedia are expected to discuss differences of opinion in order to find consensus. Merely reverting edits of others without addressing objections goes against a longstanding Wikipedia principle: WP:Consensus. Please familiarize yourself with it, this is one of our ground rules. WP:BRD states it clearly: "Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting."

If you wish to discuss your edits, please use the respective article's talk pages. If you're unsure whether someone watches, you can notify me or someone else by adding ping to your comment(s). Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Please explain

 * Hello, you recently eliminated two links from the summer solstice article without explanation. I reverted you, and you put them back. Fine, if there is a reason for the removals. Please explain why links to "our own" related articles such as 'winter solstice', aren't helpful, and relevant. Thanks → Pocketthis (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, these two links are already in the body of the article, it is not useful to repeat them. And explanation is indicated in my diffusion comments. Good day. Bear-rings (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Just because winter solstice, and Equinox are bracketed in the article, doesn't discount the priority of the links section. Most folks that read an article, don't like to be interrupted by a blue word in the middle of their concentration, and the links at the bottom give them a second chance to increase their knowledge of a particular subject after they have completely read the article. I don't know what a 'diffusion comment' is (my ignorance sorry), however, it would appear to me that you may be editing, just for the sake of editing; that is the biggest sin you can make on this site after vandalism.→ Pocketthis (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Three separate editors have opposed this removal, yet still you continue. You may not be aware of WP:3RR, but you are now in breach of it.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Your removals have been regularly questioned, yet you do not wish to discuss them. A post at WP:ANEW would probably lead to a block. You may wish to restore this link. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Summer solstice. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Summer solstice
Hello, please discuss on the talk page. Regards. Bear-rings (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on a guide for students who edit articles in cultural anthropology
Hi Bear-rings, Wiki Education is developing a guide to help students edit articles related to cultural anthropology and we'd love to hear what experienced users think of our draft so far. I've solicited feedback on a few WikiProjects, including WikiProject:Anthropology, but haven't heard much yet. I wanted to reach out personally to experienced editors who have an interest in these topics to see if they'd provide feedback. Essentially, the guide is meant to supplement other resources that students consult, such as an interactive training and basic editing brochures. It would be great to get any feedback on the draft by April 18th. Would you be interested in taking a look? Thanks for considering! Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-broken redirects
Please, stop replacing redirects by pipes, as you did in several mathematical articles. It is specified in WP:NOTBROKEN that this must not be done without good reasons, explained in the talk page. As this has been notified to you several times, here and in summary edits, this is now WP:disruptive editing. If you continue this kind of edits, I'll report your behavior to WP:ANI, in view of a block or a ban. D.Lazard (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion concerning you behavior at WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. D.Lazard (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you please ...
...discuss your edit at Absolute value? I think the previous way the links were handled there were marginally better, so I undid your edit. But you've now reinstated your edit with no discussion. Could you please explain why? Paul August &#9742; 15:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:EASTEREGG; a single link to the actual topic being mentioned is much more in line with WP:MOS linking guidelines. Bear-rings (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Yes the double link was a bit of an Easter egg, but I still think that the two links are more usefull to the reader. But as Deacon Vorbis agrees with you I will accept your change. But when other editors disagree with your edits, you need to stop edit warring and discuss your changes. If you continue to edit war and refuse to discuss you will probably be blocked from editing (see section below). Paul August &#9742; 14:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop your edit warring, at articles linear equation and Graph (discrete mathematics) as well as elsewhere. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Paul August &#9742; 13:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

What is the matter with you?
Seriously, what is your problem? Obviously you are not completely incompetent, but your behavior is disruptive and your failure to communicate is going to get you blocked. --JBL (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your appreciation regarding my incompetence, in this case : it's redir. Bear-rings (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What you wrote: "While different objects may have the universal property, they are all natural transformation" makes no senses, (as well as being ungrammatical). Such objects are not natural transformations, rather there exist natural transformations between them, i.e. they are naturally isomorphic. I suspect that you may not be a native speaker of English. You need to take this into account when you edit, be more cautious, take more time, consult books, discuss edits with other editors. Paul August &#9742; 14:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, then the easiest way would be to remove this redirect. Bear-rings (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the easiest way to fix this situation would be for you to stop making poor, disruptive edits. --JBL (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Another answer without improvement of the situation. Bear-rings (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the sentence: "While different objects may have the universal property, they are all naturally isomorphic." That is the best way to describe the situation. There is also nothing wrong with linking "naturally isomorphic". Why do you think so? Paul August &#9742; 17:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree your last modification, my problem was redirection to natural transformation, regards.Bear-rings (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But "naturally isomorphic" does redirect to natural transformation, what is the problem with that? 08:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am shocked and probably so many readers by the profusion of all these redirects, not only for this article you quoted above, but also for many other articles, including in this recent example linear equation in which the [Unknown (mathematics)|...] would be the good version, whereas it is only the redirection of [Equation|...] it seems to me that the utlisation of the main article unknowns] would be more appropriate. Thanks for your understanding.[[User:Bear-rings|Bear-rings (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:NOTBROKEN?
 * Secondly I am concerned that you are "shocked", i.e. surprised, by this. If you are still being surprised by this reaction, then that is an indication that your understanding of how WP and the WP editor community works is still far from complete. To power on through this despite, happily edit-warring against others with a better understanding is not acceptable. It will lead to your blocking. Your great reluctance to discuss these specific changes, or the broader problem, or to engage at all with the ANI thread, are a big problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You see a problems where I and many other very experienced editors do not. You should consider the possibility that you are wrong. You say you are "shocked" by the redirect of "naturally isomorphic" to "natural transformation", but you don't say why. Paul August &#9742; 09:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I repete: "I agree your last modification, my problem was redirection to natural transformation, regards.Bear-rings (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC). I wait your answer for linear equation, in my opinion unknowns is non concerned by WP:NOTBROKEN, because it's the link to explain unknowns. Bear-rings (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, what "last modification" of mine you are agreeing with? I've made no edits to ordered pair, which is the article whose edit (this one), I've been trying to discuss, and which article still contains the redirect of "naturally isomorphic" to natural transformation, which you are saying you object to (at least I think you are saying this, but part of the problem here might be your English language skills), but don't say why.
 * As for the article Linear equation, which contains "unknowns", which you wanted to change to "unknowns" , see for example this line in WP:NOTBROKEN:
 * Reasons not to bypass redirects include:
 * Redirects can indicate possible future articles (see R with possibilities).
 * Now whether or not "unknown (mathematics)" might ever become a future article in its own right is debatable, so the change you wanted to make is arguably ok. But the real problem with your edits there is that, when other editors disagreed with your edit, instead of starting a discussion about this as you are suppossed to do, you insisted on your proposed change by repeatedly editing the article ("edit warring") to your preferred version. That is the kind of behavior that will certainly end up getting you blocked if you don't stop.
 * Paul August &#9742; 10:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I strongly support you so that the best solution is to create this new article, but in the meantime ?. Bear-rings (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a content dispute. It was, now it's past that. This is a behavioural issue, about you ignoring all other editors and you edit-warring to try and enforce your version against them. Maybe the best solution would be to create a new article, but in the meantime the answer is not to start edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comment, I will make great efforts. Bear-rings (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then your efforts are not good enough: Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In section See also: US employment discrimination law ---> Employment discrimination law in the United States. Bear-rings (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yet again you are ignoring WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:EW. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

In this section See also, it's normal that the links quoted are clear and direct. Bear-rings (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 90% of your edits range from "meaningless but not harmful" to "mild improvements"; but 10% fall into the categories "unambiguously bad" or "purely disruptive". This is not an acceptable ratio for a person who makes no substantive improvements.  --JBL (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * if you say so, it's a percentage that I did not know, thank you. Bear-rings (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Latitudinal gradients in species diversity. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) Thanks for your advices, please can you help me, because I want to archive my discussion page but I do not know how to do that. Bear-rings (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Check out Help:Archiving a talk page. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Mao
Mao Zedong's titles were Chairman of the Communist Party and Chairman of the People's Republic of China. Those were the titles used at the time, so please do not change them again as it would be incorrect to change them to "President."-- Tærkast (Discuss) 18:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources for the renaming of Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, Vice Chairman of the Communist Party of China, and Chairman of the Communist Party of China. If you are unable to provide those sources, please revert those edits as they constitutes original research. -Mys_721tx (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your remarks. Bear-rings (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Otto von Bismarck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statesman ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Otto_von_Bismarck check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Otto_von_Bismarck?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Bear-rings (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)