User talk:North wiki

Talk:Honda Insight
Looking for comments on the use of a newer lead picture. Ng.j (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Separating vehicles by generation rather than powertrain or trim level
Hi, I am just dropping a note to inform you of a discussion currently taking place here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles). In summary, WikiProject Automobiles is soliciting opinions based on the separation of automobile articles by generation, as opposed to other means such as powertrain or trim level. For example, rather than having an article on the Audi S3, the Audi A3 article would be split into two sub-articles (one for each generation), and the S3 content would be moved to the appropriate location. This would place automobiles with common engineering in the same place, as opposed to grouping by a mere marketing term. Since separate articles are always provided to detail the powertrain (engine and transmission, et cetera), the partitioning of articles based on this principle is superfluous (the powertrain is only briefly discussed in the article about the car). The reason for giving the actual powertrain a separate article is to cut down on overlap: engines and transmissions are almost universally used in more than one model.

This message will be/has been posted on the talk page of all editors who contributed to the previous discussion at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As one of the two main contributors to the Honda Civic Hybrid I would like to let you know that this merger discussion is taking place here just in case you want to participate.-Mariordo (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the discussion about merging away the honda civic hybrid. That proposal is TOTALLY INSANE. I can't believe they're even entertaining it and so many are supporting it. I put in my two cents but I'm not sure I did it in the most appropriate way, I feel very, very strongly about keeping it separate, however. Feel free to move my comments around if they've been placed in an inappropriate place. I haven't been super active on wikipedia in the past several weeks so it's unlikely I'm going to have much time to put into this discussion right now though. Cazort (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My pleasure.---North wiki (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Electric Vehicles
It sounds like a great idea, and I'd be happy to help in any way possible, but I am very busy and do not have much spare time for Wikiediting. Thanks for including me and let me know what I can do. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Great. I appreciate your interest. As long as you're willing to sign in, we'll see how to move forward. Any idea if other editors may be interested so that I can drop off a line to them? I think we'll need five to start the project.---North wiki (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, do you think Stepho-wrs will be interested? ---North wiki (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure about Stepho-wrs. He seems to be an independent thinker, and I am not prepared to second-guess him.  Ebikeguy (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I oppose it, and I think this needs proper discussion before it's implemented. This is redundant to WP:CARS, we don't need separate WikiProject for every niche sub-interest. WP:CARS is the central hub for all automotive-related interests, and by opening a new project you will be limiting the number of people who can participate in discussions that will affect automobile-related pages at large. So where should we hold a central discussion? OSX (talk • contributions) 03:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take 'independent thinker' as a compliment :) I'm against a separate electric vehicles project for pretty much the same reason as I'm for merging electrics, hybrids and ICE articles (although I'm not continuing that discussion here). I believe that in 10 years or so, practically all vehicles will be either pure electric (city cars) or hybrids (everything else) and that this is a good thing. Thus multi-generation articles like Toyota Corolla will have a note on one or two generations say that they changed from ICE to electric or hybrid - just like there is a note for the Corolla E80 series about the change from rear well drive to front wheel drive. Likewise for the introduction of main stream EFI and catalytic converters in the 1980s - lots of excitement and media coverage at the time but now we just take it all for granted. A lesson I've learnt from my day job as a computer programmer is that special cases give great benefits in the short term but great pain for maintenance in the long term. Of course, people don't work the same way as computers but I've found simplicity also works well for me in my personal life. But if an electric vehicles project is started then of course I'd like to participate. I stick mostly with Toyota articles but Toyota has been playing in this field since at least 1970. Cheers.  Stepho   (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Stepho-wrs: First, my apologies for not informing you earlier. And I'm grateful to hear that if such a project starts you'll participate and I welcome an "independent" thinker :) . I take note of your opinion about the project. Side note, I can fully understand your thinking, about electric cars and hybrids in the long run. ---North wiki (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Stepho-wrs: Hybrid is not just another powertrain. It is not a front wheel drive change and not a catalytic converter. Hybrid powertrain is $8,000 !!! worth of additional equipment. It is a revolutionary technology in reducing oil consumption, air pollution and USA dependence on imported oil. It is on the verge of profitability for every new car buyer. That is why lots of people seeking info about it - to make a decision to buy or not to buy a Hybrid or a Plug-in. That is why we have to make every effort to make it easy for people to learn about it. ---Yegort (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I am just an occasional editor and I do not have much time to contribute. If it will help stop all these hybrids and plug-ins articles merges I am all for it. Hybrid is not just another powertrain!!! It is an expensive and risky Enterprise for manufactures. If it was just another powertrain we would see it available on every model from every manufacturer. It is also a revolutionary technology in reducing oil consumption, air pollution and USA dependence on imported oil. And that is why we have to make every effort to make it easy for people to learn about these technologies (hybrids and plug-ins). [User:Yegort|Yegort]] (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine, all are welcome. Keep an eye out for any interested editors and drop a line here so I can invite them, thank you.-North wiki (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yegort, thank you for bringing a chuckle to my otherwise grumpy morning :) Every reason you listed are also the reasons why EFI was introduced in the early 1980s - food for thought. I'm old enough to remember the transition - pay more for emission-friendly but failure prone first gen EFI or pay less for good ol' reliable carbs. But the merge / not merge discussion is taking place elsewhere. I'm only stating my position here, I'm not trying to convert anyone - at least, not on this page :) By the way, I prefer being called Stepho. The '-wrs' bit on the end are my initials because 'Stepho' was already taken. Cheers.  Stepho   (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am interested. We can include the information and more people can join to it to form the Taskforce (I see more people interested in the Taskforce in this section, enough to initialize it). WikiProject Electric Vehicles includes all types of electric vehicles (electric-only vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles)--Diamondland (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Great. I'm counting you in. ---North wiki (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than a separate Wikiproject, it may be better to form a Task Force linked to an existing project. One possibility could be a Green Vehicles Task Force associated with Wikiproject Environment. Johnfos (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * While I still think it shouldn't exist at all, I agree that it would be linked to an existing project rather than existing on its own. However, the parent project should be wikiproject Automobiles. I see the point that a major theme for EV cars is environmental. I also see other themes like independence of oil (with reference to the Middle East and the wars there), sportiness (some EV's will be absolute powerhouses rather econo-boxes), quietness. And afterall, they are cars - which in the end are a means of transport once all the hoopla has died down (I say this as a car enthusiast and as someone hopeful for the bright future of EV). There will ineibitbly be conflict with other automobile editors but there will be even more conflicts if you have two complete projects fighting each other in multiple articles. Even worse if the current merger proposals happen and we have two separate projects trying to manage a single article. A cynical person could claim that attempting to create a new EV project is a way of trying to stop the merger proposals by saying 'gasoline car articles belong to Wikiproject Automobile but EV aticles belong to the EV project, therefore they can never be merged'. But if the EV project is linked to Wikiproject Automobile' then we will at least have a common forum to thrash out the differences - probably a painful and drawn out process but the differences will need to be settled at sometime anyway. Lastly, the proposal for a new project (or a linked project) should be mentioned at Wikiproject Automobile as at least a courtesy.  Stepho   (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Most editors in wikiproject Automobiles are vociferously opposed to the goals and priorities of those who support green vehicles. We need a separate group that supports our priorities, something that can stand as a counterweight to the anti-green bias of wikiproject Automobiles.  Ebikeguy (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Then should it be a task force under another project, like Environment? -North wiki (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I really support Johnfos proposal, avoids the overlapping and puts the emphasis on the environmental performance. The guys from the WP:AUTO have also a feet on these articles so they can work on improving the automotive/technology part. I believe initially we could concentrate on improving content (that is what I have been doing for several months now). Count me in.--Mariordo (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot really overemphasize the importance of the green vehicles in our days! I am sorry that I was too emotional at first. But people it is a matter of life and death - people are dieing right now in Afghanistan and Iraq because of lack of crude oil in the world! Hybrid, Plug-ins and EVs are a peaceful solution to this tragedy. Today Hybrids are economically viable for buyers - the extra cost of the vehicle is paid back to the buyer in fuel cost savings over the life of the vehicle. But still because it is a relatively new technology, some people cannot do the math and whatever is the other reason lots of people are not buying them! Green vehicles are also reduce air pollution. We have to make every effort for new car buyers to easily see the viability of buying a green vehicle. So please do return separate articles for every green vehicle! A potential new car buyer makes a "Ford Fusion Hybrid" Google search - he has to be directed right away to "Ford Fusion Hybrid" Wikipedia article and be able to see the viability of buying it. I really support Johnfos proposal. Count me in. I do not have much time but I will try to make every effort.--Yegort (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This needs further discussion with WP:CARS, so please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Also, I am quite disgusted by the anti-green accusations made here.

No one at WP:CARS is anti-green, we just don't see why hybrids, electric vehicles, performance vehicles, badge engineered vehicles, et cetera need to be given a higher standing to the donor car. I am not against hybrids or EVs, cars that run on ethanol, use LPG, CNG or LNG, or even suck in carbon dioxide and "pollute" oxygen. I am all for public transport and do not believe cars should be encouraged in the cities. I sometimes feel that EVs and hybrids are just an excuse to justify the extremely inefficient means of transport that cars are. Most cars consist of the driver only most of the time, and being an EV does not make the journey any more efficient in terms of space utilisation (EVs still contribute to traffic congestion). Cars (in particular the kind that is friendlier to the environment) have a place outside of cities where public transport is impractical and financially unviable. Within cities, cars should be used sparingly, something that is easier said than done in many places addicted to cars (i.e Australia and the North America), where public transport infrastructure is inferior to that available in Western Europe and East Asia.

In spite of this, I have a very strong interests in cars, ranging broadly from small cars to luxury cars, including hybrids, EVs, and anything in between (not interested in exotic sports cars like Ferraris though). I think because I don't have a specific niche interest in "green" cars, this is where the problem lies. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment Johnfos (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot really overemphasize the importance of the green vehicles in our days! I am sorry that I was too emotional at first. But people it is the matter of life and death - people are dieing right now in Afghanistan and Iraq because of lack of crude oil in the world! Hybrids, Plug-ins and EVs are a peaceful solution to this tragedy. Today Hybrids are economically viable for buyers (some more, some less) - the extra cost of the vehicle is paid back to the buyer in fuel cost savings over the life of the vehicle. But still because it is a relatively new technology, some people cannot do the math and whatever is the other reason lots of people are not buying them! Green vehicles are also reduce air pollution. We have to make every effort that the new car buyers would be able to see easily the viability of buying a green vehicle. So please do return separate articles for every green vehicle! A potential new car buyer makes a "Ford Fusion Hybrid" Google search - he has to be directed right away to "Ford Fusion Hybrid" Wikipedia article and be able to see the viability of buying it. I really support Johnfos proposal. Count me in. I do not have much time to contribute but I will try to make every effort.--Yegort (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yegort, I can not agree with you more. We are killing are environment and wasting our precious resources. I dearly hope that we learn to manage our transport in much better ways (less of it and more eco-friendly ways of doing what we do need, more push-bikes, more walking, etc). Even your arch nemesis OSX has said that he is in favour of hybrids and EVs being on the road. However, WP's task is to record the facts (old/new, gasoline/hybrid/EV), rather than to bring about change (or at least WP should only change the world by allowing all the facts to be more visible). Systematic bias to hide EV information is bad. Systematic bias to highlight EV information is also bad. Both must be presented. My hope is that EV's take over the road but that WP still records what all the gasoline guzzling, smoke belching old cars did. Thanks.  Stepho   (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My personal objective for articles in WP is to be as NPOV and be as inclusive as possible. Neither one-sided for nor against, but let both sides have their positions (as long as they're valid - from NPOV RS) represented in the article. ---North wiki (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do agree that Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia and therefore should only record facts. "Green Vehicles" are Environmental first and Vehicles second. "Green Vehicles" were created not because there was a need to get from point A to point B - existing Internal Combustion Engine vehicles already did this job. "Green Vehicles" were created because of environmental concerns. Therefore the emphasis in Green Vehicles articles should be on what they were created for - Environmental impact (including information tables). This is what people are looking for when they seek Green Vehicle information. Each Green vehicle model is a multimillion risky investment - there are very few of them - for this and other reasons each one deserves an article.Yegort (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see cars as transport first (their reason for existence) and that environmental concerns are a (necessary) constraint. After all, if we didn't want transport then they would not exist and the environmental impact would irrelevant. History has shown this. In the 1970s, emission control laws hurt the power of cars (ie the only way to lessen emissions was to lessen power). So EFI and twincams became mainstream to regain lost power. In the 1980s, emission control laws forced manufacturers to use catalytic converters. EFI, twincam and catalytic converters were put onto mainstream cars primarily for environmental reasons. But EFI, twincam and cats are still under Wikiproject Automobiles instead of WP:Project Environment. Hybrids and EVs are just the next logical step in the progression of cars. Granted it's a rather large step to make cars fit a world where our children will be able to breathe but still a step in an already existing progression.
 * However, North wiki has notified me that Green vehicle task force has been formed under WP:Project Environment. I have already lost the battle, so I will withdraw gracefully - limping on one leg, violins playing sadly in the background and the movie fading out to black :)  Stepho   (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Stepho, please, don't take it bad or anything personal. I hope it's not treated as something against WP:CARS. As you've said previously, there're many occasions, issues will arise from same articles faced by same/similar editors. And I still emphasis that my personal objective for WP is to be as NPOV as possible. It's my sincere hope that, in the future, everyone can take a conciliatory approach when there is a difference in opinion, and exhibit respect and maximum consideration. With best wishes. -North wiki (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thought. No bad feelings from my end.  Stepho   (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation
It would be good if you could join us at WikiProject Environment/Green vehicle task force. Johnfos (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -North wiki (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Bentley Motors Limited
Hi, There's a difference between "understood to have returned to profit" and "expected to return to a profit in 2011". Agreed? The newspaper whose report was quoted Understands the company has returned to profit, i.e. it has been told that. Now mind if I change that back? Eddaido (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. The Telegraph is only one source out of many. What the Telegraph reported, I think, is not absolute on this subject matter. For example, according to the Marketwatch: 'Bentley said growing demand in both mature and emerging markets contributed "to a positive financial result for 2011," without providing further details. Volkswagen, Europe's largest auto maker by sales, is scheduled to release detailed earnings, including a breakdown by individual brands, on March 12.' I guess the figure is not finalised and released to the public until VAG announces its result on Mar 12. The reason I changed 'understood' to 'expected' is because the wording, as used by the Telegraph, is more appropriate when readers understood they are reading from a news story, but it may not be as appropriate when used in an encyclopedia (understood, by whom? The readers? The editors of the encyclopedia? Or VAG?).--North wiki (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph was the quoted source. I'm sure you know as well as I do that such companies tell such things to financial journalists and selected others and they would by now know very well whether or not they had done better than break-even by the end of the financial year but could not be exact about it to anyone. If you had changed it to "expected to announce a profit for 2011" I would not quibble but I still believe I was correct. Understood by? Surely the party providing the information, I don't understand your claimed confusion.


 * Now about "I wondered why it's necessary to have a separate sub section for 'Sales 2011'?" that was just because I was lazy and did not want to review the paragraph above because matching figures for 2010 are not there yet wanted to put the new news on the page following a bit of a dust-up. Re-arrange to suit yourself, please! Eddaido (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Re-reading your message above - Quite surely "Marketwatch 'Bentley said growing demand in both mature and emerging markets contributed to a positive financial result for 2011' is saying "the company is understood to have returned to profit!!! Aargh Eddaido (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not Google news. It is not about what's the latest. I guess you surely can take the time to review the paragraph above and follow the layout, rather than edit in haste and become disruptive or cause additional work for others to follow up.


 * P.S. About the Marketwatch story, I interpret it quite differently from you. I can't see how it can be said "the company is understood to have returned to profit". I would only say the company "expects" to return to a profit.--North wiki (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * About Google News. If you wish to take the time to review that muddled para above my addition you are most welcome. I did not see how it could be done and produce a sensible result, too many big gaps in the available info. So far as I am concerned I reported accurate information of great interest to many readers. Do not suggest I have been disruptive or created additional work (as you do above) you have no reason to say that. If you cannot understand what is being said in the Marketwatch message then you should not be making the kind of amendment you have! Can you talk to some financially aware people to clarify things for you? regards, Eddaido (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Back because I missed a colon above. Look, its like this, VW have said that Bentley has returned to profit in 2011 but they are obliged to use, if you like, a coded phrase - which effectively means that but is very carefully imprecise and gives no numbers at all, it is the merest indication. If in March they announce something a great deal different there will be trouble. Eddaido (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's clear that I suggest you to follow the layout of the para. above. If you are not satisfied with the para. but are not comfortable to modify it, it's fine, just leave it to other more capable editors. No need to disrupt the well-accepted layout. Couldn't you understand this? What's your problem?


 * It would be great for you to ask "some financially aware people" to look into this matter, or, may I suggest, some with better English for assistance.--North wiki (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ford Germany
Thank you for bringing the problem to my attention. I fixed up the Wallace citation.Iss246 (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The
When referring to a vehicle name, please put 'the' in front of it. We talk about the Scion xD. Any sentence with a vehicle name should be written as though the vehicle name was replaced with 'car', rather than treating it like a personal name - eg don't write it as though the name was 'Fred'. Thanks.  Stepho  talk 22:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. When you recently edited Honda Fit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chichibu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Done.---North wiki (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Subaru Outback and friends
I just wanted to invite you to a second discussion regarding whether the Subaru Outback deserves a standalone article or if it ought to be merged into the relevant generational articles of Subaru Legacy (and Impreza). Thank you,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the extra notes (I saw DeLarge and probably others), I had to go to work and didn't have time for everyone although I tried to get all of the most recent editors, on all sides. Thanks again,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Mini Vote
Hey, I have proposed a vote for something to be agreed on once and for all regarding the Mini issues; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mini_%28marque%29#Vote Yellowxander (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.---North wiki (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Changfeng Automobile
should be where you post Changfeng Automobile. Hope copying this here makes it easier for you, but I'm still not certain that's the exact format. Dru of Id (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suzuki Alto, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages FWD and CVT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

 * Thank you. Much appreciated.---North wiki (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Plug-in electric vehicle into Battery electric vehicle
If you are interested please discuss at Talk:Battery_electric_vehicle Chidgk1 (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio tag @ Chinese intelligence activity abroad
Looks like a rats nest of copyvio. I've removed the copyvio and another instance, but more work needs to be done. thanks for flagging (back in august 2020). Sennecaster  ( What now? ) 04:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It actually looks like that the flag you placed was not a copyvio, or it was edited out since. There's still others, so I'm keeping watch. Again, thanks for bringing this to attention. Sennecaster   ( What now? ) 04:44, 8 April 2021 (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)