User talk:Dan Polansky

Welcome!
Hiya,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Questions, come by and post a question for me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! (not)(listening)
 * Redacted as for visuals (colors, font face) but with no impact on text. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Definition of philosophy
Recreated as per request. Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:SMART criteria
Hi Dan, I notice you haven't been active much recently, but I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Talk:SMART criteria, since you have contributed quite a bit to the article in the past. Yaris678 (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Dan,
 * Thanks for doing that Google Books ngram. I wasn't aware of that feature.  It is very useful.
 * It seems I got the wrong end of stick about the "request move" process and the conversation was closed before many people had a chance to comment. I have started a new discussion at Talk:SMART criteria, which hopefully won't suffer from this problem.  Yaris678 (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Covid cases per capita
An updated version of the script is at Commons:File talk:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Deaths per Capita.svg.

I created a quick script that takes data maintaned in Wikipedia (List of countries and dependencies by population, Template:2019%E2%80%9320 coronavirus pandemic data) and outputs covid cases per capita and covid deaths per capita: For instance, for Italy it outputs 0.00041 cases per capita, consistent with worldometers.info, which has 409.3 cases per million population for Italy.

Now I need to change and expand the script to work with country codes instead of country names, and to output colored SVG map.

To run the script yourself, you do not need to be a programmer: --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Install Python if on Windows; you already have Python if you are on the Mac or Linux.
 * 2) Create a file covid.py and place the above script text into the file.
 * 3) Run the command line from the folder into which you placed the script.
 * 4) Run "python covid.py > covid.txt", and see the script download the data from Wikipedia, calculate, and textually output the calculation into covid.txt file.

I published output of the script at B:User:Dan Polansky/COVID-19, total cases per capita and total deaths per capita. The results for cases per capita are very similar what worldometers has. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I now expanded the script above to create an svg map for total cases per capita; the script downloads from Wikipedia all data and inputs that it needs, outputs calculation results and creates "COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Cases per Capita.svg". However, I now see that someone has published one: File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map per Capita.svg. What remains to do is create a map for deaths per capita. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The script now also outputs COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Deaths per Capita.svg. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Script updated; it does multiple calculations with results going standard output and creates two svg files. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The WP:Refactor was to keep the discussion going for others
I’m happy and interested to keep the academic discussion going between us on our talk pages but it was too long and circular for others. Do you get what I mean?—Almaty (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The above editor has removed significant portions of my comments from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, e.g. in Special:Diff/945981338. I find it very objectinable, and ask the above editor to undo the unhelpful censorship. Can the above editor state for the record that they are in no way affiliated with WHO, to make it utterly clear that there is no conflict of interest? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I hereby state and declare that I am in no way affiliated with the WHO and I am a doctor in Australia with no connection whatsoever to the WHO. —Almaty (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, can the above editor now reinstate the comments that they removed, and further refrain from unnecessary censorship? My comments contained substantive arguments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is User:49.195.179.13 the same as Almaty? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * yes that’s stated in the talk page. I can edit from various places, it’s allowed to use IPs if you can’t sign in. We just need to keep the discussion clear, if you want to allege things about me, it should be on my talk page. Otherwise the talk page is even more unreadable than it is. I would suggest you reword and reinsert in about half the words or less what your substantive arguments are, otherwise no one will read them. —Almaty (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The above editor has removed much more than allegations about them. I therefore ask the above editor to reinstate my posts and remove from my posts only statements that made allegations about them, but reinstate the portions that did not refer to the above editor. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * this was a good faith refactor because we got into a circular argument, your arguments are still there, if you feel they’re not, please reinsert them. We agreed on your wording about the CFRs, so I would suggest that rather than arguing, you insert a major thing that we agree on. —Almaty (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) I do not discuss good or bad faith of the above editor; I merely ask them to undo their inappropriate censorship and editing of other people's comments. Let me pick just one pair of responses (Special:Diff/945981338):

WAS:


 * So what do they mean by "controlled"? Do they mean "contained"? It is very unobvious that the beast can be contained worldwide; it is very unobvious that e.g. African countries can implement the South Korean track-and-isolate method; even European countries probably cannot properly implement track-and-isolate, so they have to resort to lockdown, lacking the South Korean experience and infrastructure. Who cares about what WHO says? It is very unobvious that the beast can be contained. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * it’s complicated but controlled is their word and a far stronger word than contained. —Almaty (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

IS:
 * So what do they mean by "controlled"? Do they mean "contained"? . --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * it’s complicated but controlled is their word and a far stronger word than contained. —Almaty

That is really hugely inappropriate; it is a misrepresentation of the communication that took place, and it must be undone. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * you have full reversion rights, and I encourage you to do so, but I suggest half the words or less and avoiding emotive words like beast, and you won’t get very far with “who cares what the who says”, I’m kinda refactoring that as a favour so the substantive arguments of your post are considered without the emotive parts. —Almaty (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I ask the above editor to stop the rampant censorship: in particular, it is utterly inappropriate to prevent me from using the word "beast" in reference to covid. The reader may notice that the above editor asked elsewhere that the Covid article does not use the word "pandemic" so often and instead use the word "current event". The above editor shows these very dangerous and foolish behaviors and should desist. Equally, statement "who cares what the WHO says" is very appropriate in reference to matters on which WHO has proven to be incompetent, and is a contribution to assessment of WHO as an unreliable source that should not be uncritically relied on. That is very relevant since the above editor has repeatedly taken WHO uncritically as a source whose utterances should be put word-for-word into article lead. I ask the editor again to undo the censorship and only limit the censorship to portions of my post that can be construed as personal attacks on the above editor. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns but you’ll have to reinsert them yourself. I suggest you start a new section titled “should the WHO be considered a reliable source” in order to raise your concerns. —Almaty (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would only reinsert my comments if I get reassurance that only comments referring to the above editor will be censored. Anyway, I got better things to do; above, I published a script to calculate per capita figures in a snap (original research according to the above editor), and now I need to find enough energy to generate the SVG per capita. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * per WP:TPO it is not acceptable to refactor other people's comments on a talk page, whatever your opinion of them. And you also shouldn't be significantly altering your own comments after they've been responded to, unless it's to strike something out (but still leaving it in place for context). Also, please stop adding the sentence about the WHO saying the pandemic is the first to be controlled, without consensus in the talk page discussion. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

as stated it wasn’t to change the meaning but to summarise, that’s how refactoring works. And you are allowed to summarise your statements too. —Almaty (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/945981509 and Special:Diff/945981338 are not summarizations by any stretch; these were acts of eggregious censorship. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that is not "how refactoring works". Refactoring talk pages explicitly prohibits deleting other people's comments. And it is also not a guideline, it hasn't been approved, so certainly does not supesede WP:TPO. You also shouldn't be altering your own comments in that discussion, as that distorts the history. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Well I used that guideline wirth success. I removed personal attacks and repetitive assertions that I work for the WHO. I feel targeted by this editor as he has somehow convinced that’s what I am. I tired to make a joke about it, I tried to tactfully remind him to be civil, but basically he blatantly attacks me as a “WHO censor” and this has led to my wikbreak for my sanity Almaty (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

To declare I am doing a masters of public health and political comms, and I feel I’ve contributed quite a lot of the current texts especially quite important words to have clear outbreak communication. If this badgering continues I will report to ANI. Almaty (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

and the section of refactoring I did wasAs a rule, editors should not edit each other's comments in ways that affect meaning – doing so creates misrepresentations, disrupts the flow of conversations, and makes debates and discussions impossible to follow – but cases exist in which an editor's comments need to be removed from the flow of conversation because the comments themselves disrupt the flow of conversation. Loosely, the following types of refactoring are legitimate Almaty (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As for "repetitive assertions that I work for the WHO": There was no such thing; I repeatedly asked a question about affiliation with WHO and I stopped as soon as I got an answer, which did not come immediately. As for personal attacks, I proposed that the above editor reinstates my posts but removes parts that can be construed as personal attacks on them. Special:Diff/945981509 and Special:Diff/945981338 went far beyong removing anything resembling a personal attack on the above editor; it was removal of substantive criticism of using WHO as a reliable source on anything and everything, and admittedly, it was criticism of WHO, which was important in context of disagreeing with someone who justifies to many proposals by uncritically deferring to WHO word-for-word. I leave it to the reader to assess whether the above editor behaves as if they were paid by WHO to censor Wikipedia and to create a pro-WHO-wording bias. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 cases per capita table
Hi Dan! As you know, I want you to succeed with getting the per capita table integrated, but I have to tell you I don't think your most recent insertion is going to go well. You still haven't addressed the formatting issues I previously mentioned that make the table stylistically inferior to the totals table. Until you do, it's very likely to just get removed again, since people are going to find it easier to delete it than to fix it. If you want it inserted that badly, which it seems you do, you need to put in the effort to make it ready for that. And I think once you do you'll find it surprisingly welcome. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 09:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I cherish the hope that Wikipedia editors are going to realize that petty stylistic concerns (missing flags?) must not trump the substantive value of the information provided. Wikipedia is still publishing the misleading and manipulative absolute numbers; adding per capita figures does Wikipedia a huge favor and a chance to repair its reputation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice if they did, but they won't. Adding the styling really shouldn't be too hard — you have a template you can pretty much just copy and then switch to the per capita data. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 12:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's see what happens. Let's see who wants to put their name on the removing edit. I have already addressed the substantive concerns: I added the calculation date and I stated the two source pages from which the rates were calculated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 deaths per day on Sweden page
Hello Dan, why did you undo the updated graph for deaths per day on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden. Your comment says "undo anonymous edits that added the most recent daily death data, which creates a misleading idea in the mind of readers". What is misleading in the face of updated official data? Balance66 (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to explain that at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. The final part of the chart creates the wrong impression that deaths are going down much more steeply than they really are. Therefore, the final part of the chart is misleading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice the talk page on the entry itself. Only the individual user talks. I found it though. As I said - the chart will smooth as the new data comes in (or not), but as long as official numbers are coming out, if the chart is there it should extend the existing set. But we can't assume "the mind of the reader". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balance66 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I continue any discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. I would like to ask others to undo the reverts made by the above user with almost no Wikipedia contribution. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Do people take covid-19 serious
Covid-19 LisaFifa (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Readable prose size
Instead of ignoring the fact that I'm just a new user still getting the hang of some things and suggesting some sort of ulterior motive on my part, maybe you can actually, you know, educate me on how readable prose size is calculated? I actually asked about this on the talk page for COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden and I still haven't heard back from anyone about it. Love of Corey (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The above seems to be in response to my post at Articles for deletion/Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The above user wasted the time of mutiple editors by making and revert-enforcing an inapplicable split, in violation of Article size. The editors whose time was wasted are noted for substantive content contribution. I recommend the above user to carefully read the relevant portion of Article size, and try to understand it; in case of doubt, they can read it multiple times. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate that you're not engaging me directly and treating this as if it's some article talk page. WP:AGF, please. Love of Corey (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no intent to discuss faith (motives or intentions) of the above user. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "...[I]n particular, they ignored that the quantity to be counted is 'Readable prose size', and they still seem not to have figured out how readable prose size is calculated." You make it sound like I'm ignoring that on purpose, when I clearly made a previous attempt at figuring it out, the diff of which I provided. Love of Corey (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The quoted statement does not indicate intent or purpose; maybe "did not realize" would be better; I don't know. In any case, it seems that the above user did not carefully read Article size before trying to enforce it against actual content contibutors; whether they did it on purpose, from lack of carefulness, from lack of respect for actual content contributors and their time and attention, or via other causes I do not speculate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You should think over your words next time, then. Love of Corey (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

All causes deaths tables
Noticed you added all-causes-deaths tables to several articles. This might not be WP:NPOV. I'm also not sure why we need to use lots of screen space on detailed death rates for prior years. This causes the interesting part of the graph to be compressed at the right edge. Perhaps a one year graph with the various years' data overlaid - prior years in various shades of gray, and the current (partial) year a vivid color. EphemeralErrata (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All-cause death charts are excellent and highly relevant material published for the U.S. by CDC. I cannot see any problem with WP:NPOV. I would plot even more years than actually plotted if I had the data: that provides important context. The manner of plotting I chose for the U.S. is similar to what CDC does for the U.S. and what EuroMOMO does for multiple European countries, although I do not plot any baseline. The chart does not take excess screen space. Another manner of plotting, the one with year data overlaid, may be considered since it provides a baseline vertically underneath the raised values in 2020, but the current manner of plotting is also reasonably informative. One can compare the chart for COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, COVID-19 pandemic in New York City and COVID-19 pandemic in Florida to see staggering differences between the individual states and the U.S. level. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For reference, a helper script and a small guide for obtaining the data from CDC are at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

All-cause death charts
It's your edits the ones being disputed. Probably YOU should have sought a consensus when you were first reverted rather than keeping pressing for your edits. These are in violation of several policies and guidelines (like WP:RAWDATA and WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, for example). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or of generic data tables.  Impru 20 talk 18:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Impru20 I started a discussion at the above user's talk page, but let's have a look here: Why do all-cause deaths go against WP:RAWDATA while all the case and death charts included in the articles do not? The plot needs to be using the data from somewhere, but the type of chart itself is published by EuroMOMO, mortality.org and U.S. CDC. As for "generic data tables"; I added no data table but rather charts, extremely informative ones as far as I am concerned. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The charts in the articles are specific to the pandemic and are given context in those articles. Those are useful bits of information adding encyclopedic value. What you are doing is to indiscriminately add the full historical series of "all-cause deaths" into all articles (which are not even comparable among themselves and are given no context at all pertaining to the article's topic), which is against WP:RAWDATA. Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.  Impru 20 talk 18:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me respond at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, to have one venue. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Admissibility of primary sources
For my reference: the use of primary sources is not forbidden, as per WP:No original research:
 * "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
 * "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

I made that point in Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. One should not put one's own analysis of the primary source into the article, though. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth
There is Verifiability, not truth, and its status is essay, not a policy or guideline. I find the idea to be dangerous nonsense. The objective of verification is to make as sure as possible that the sentences are true. If, on the other hand, I know positively sentence S is untrue, I should not run around inserting S into an encyclopedia and finding sources for it that some poor souls might accept as "reliable". The objective is to accumulate knowledge, not myth or "reliably" sourced misinformation.

By contrast, Verifiability has the status of a policy.

In Popperian vein, one might want to have another essay: Falsifiability, not verifiability. That would be more interesting. But that would belong to the area of real, original research. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Your recent editing history at COVID-19 pandemic in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - MrX 🖋 13:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why don't you address the substance? I pinged you on the talk page of the article and you did not respond to my request to substantiation. In the latest removal in diff, I provided new reason for removal in the edit summary. Let's discuss further on the article talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I did a few minutes ago. Regardless, you can't edit war to get your way and editing in this topic area is subject to community sanctions. - MrX 🖋 13:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

- MrX 🖋 13:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As a general note to whomever cares: the above is an example of unpleasant Wikipedia experience, where ugly typographically overdone boxes and inappropriately strong icons arrive at one's talk page, full of boilerplate text. I understand the need to notify editors of what can possibly be problematic behavior, though. Not good. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Purpose redirect to dab
I restored your redirect to the dab page after initially reverting it. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Package link in "Further reading" section?
Why did you add a package download link to a commercial (freemium) download site? Why did you add a package download link to a "Further reading" section? Is there something there to (further) read other than the labels on the controls used to download the software? Thx.

+package link &#32; (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You are still active on WP and you did not respond to me so I removed it. &#32; (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Technological singularity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Physics of Immortality. 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) 06:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Ontology (Information Science)
please revert the redirect from Ontology (Information Science) to Ontology (Information Science) and not Ontology (Computer science). The move is not sufficiently motivated by the "evidence" in wikidata. may I ask what has motivated your actions here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neumarcx (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I started Talk:Ontology (computer science). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)