User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 84

User barred from editing multiple discographies causing trouble on another
Hey again. I've just found out an editor using the range Special:Contributions/213.237.80.0/20, blocked by Ohnoitsjamie only from editing a number of music artists' pages a couple of months ago for using multiple accounts to do so, is causing trouble at Robbie Williams discography now, restoring awful formatting to the singles section, needlessly separating what is not that long a section into decades (titled "1990's", "2000's" and so on), repeating citations, and all other sorts of nonsense. Would you be able to alter the block to include this page? I reverted this earlier today and a few hours ago they returned to "restore" the edit. Looks like another page they will just try the tactics that got them blocked on the others, as they've been editing the discography on-and-off with these bad edits for months now.  Ss  112   13:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Protected awhile ago, forgot to mention here.) Sergecross73   msg me  11:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Clpo13
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Brian0918 • JDoorjam • Karanacs • MrDarcy • Mindspillage

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Evad37

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dreamy Jazz • Ferret • GeneralNotability • Girth Summit • RoySmith

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dreamy Jazz • LuK3

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news
 * Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration
 * , and  have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections.  and  are reserve commissioners.
 * Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Help
Hi, I've seen you moderate and edit articles related to Music and Taylor Swift, and hence I'm contacting you. User "Nerd271", who appeared out of nowhere on Taylor Swift, has been toying with the images on the article, decorating the article, cluttering the prose with stacked citations, trimming prose excessively to the point of obnoxiousness leading to loss of details etc. And when contacted, they gave me sassy, comedic replies. And they're literally flooding the Taylor Swift talk page and my user talk page with discussions just so they could keep me busy with those. I'm tired and this is getting out of my hands. I'm exhausted. I told them to stop by giving them edit-war warnings, and they still wouldn't stop. I request your intervention. And if possible, please increase the protection level of Taylor Swift to "admin only" even if that means I can't edit on the article anymore. I'm tired of the reverts. Thank You. Ronherry (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ronherry: I pinged you because I wanted to talk to you. Those were separate issues so I created separate sections for each on the talk page. I am not attacking you personally. Goodness sake! Please calm down! Nerd271 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is currently a Featured Article - the highest article quality possible on Wikipedia. While that may not mean "perfect" or "complete"...there's already a lot of perfectly good pictures in the article. It doesn't strike me as needing more pictures or different pictures. That's my two cents. Unless anyones breaking WP:3RR, I don't think there's much Admin action I should be taking yet. Please stop and hash it out on the articles talk page. It's an extremely high traffic article, so I imagine there will be other editors participating if you start a talk page discussion. It's best to work towards a WP: CONSENSUS there rather than all this reverting that will likely lead to blocks eventually. (I'm not threatening either of you, I'm just saying I've seen this a million times and that's what generally happens if the reverting doesn't stop.)  Sergecross73   msg me  00:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Rough consensus, user disregarding guideline
Hey Serge. The user appears to have reverted something like four editors on Let's Go Brandon at this point, disregarding WP:BADCHARTS, which says iTunes statistics should not be cited. Two of the sources used for the iTunes statistics are also dubious WP:PRIMARY sources. Three editors (now including myself) have stated to this editor on Talk:Let's Go Brandon that they should not be used, but they're predictably citing WP:IGNORE and claiming (at least in edit summaries) that it's an WP:NPOV issue. Despite BADCHARTS being a thing, there seems to be some sort of presumption on this user's part that everybody who follows a guideline is a Joe Biden supporter trying to deny the popularity of songs based off a chant of "fuck Joe Biden", which is ridiculous. They have explicitly said "Wikipedia is all about presenting a balanced view. Some may not like the phenomenon, but it exists" when from the looks of it, none of these editors have tried to "deny" its popularity but merely remove the iTunes stats. Two of the songs have now entered the US Hot 100, so we absolutely don't need to still be citing iTunes charts when a more thorough chart metric exists.

Anyway, if four users telling an editor and them not listening isn't forming a rough consensus against including this, I don't know what is. From their edits, this editor seems to like getting involved in hot-button political topics, and they are under the impression that selling enough to get in the top 10 of iTunes is something special in 2021. (Four different songs titled the same thing and based off the same chant is unusual, sure, but not unheard of.) Would you be able to take a look at it and see if anything's worth having a word to this user about? Thanks.  Ss  112   01:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've given them a warning on BADCHARTS and BRD. I'd prefer to just start with that considering how contentious and heated everything related to that article/subject currently is. Sergecross73   msg me  02:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Hi Sergecross73, I would like to report a user who has repeatedly edit warred on Do It. User Liftarn has repeatedly tried including Janne Suni as a songwriter on the song due to the fact it was revealed the producer Timbaland had plagiarized a synth from one of Suni’s songs. From the sources provided on the page and on Timbaland plagiarism controversy — states it was all settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. No sources state Suni was granted songwriting credits. I have asked multiple times for the user to include a source stating they were granted credits but they fail to provide a single source. User has also stepped in and left them a message explaining similar situations where artists plagiarize others work but aren’t granted songwriting credits. They also have left them an edit warring warning on their talk page as well. This has been getting out of hand — I do not understand why a user who has been on here for almost 20 years with almost 50K edits is acting this way. Please do something about this as there are now 2 users who have disagreed with their actions. Pillowdelight (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Serge, just dropping in to say I agree with this—if this Janne Suni musician who was apparently "plagiarised" didn't win a court case to be credited, we shouldn't be doing it for them. The user Liftarn has contributed extensively to Timbaland plagiarism controversy and appears to feel strongly that this person Timbaland "stole" from be credited, even though courts in both Finland and the US apparently dismissed the case. A US court reportedly said because the work was not registered with the US Copyright Office, "they were not entitled to bring an action in federal court". Along with perhaps a warning to Liftarn to quit this, would you be able to take a look at the wording in the lead of Timbaland plagiarism controversy? I feel that regardless of a glaring similarity but more importantly in the absence of a court ruling in their favour, it's not Wikipedia's job to decide that a song stole from another, and another editor of that page (not Liftarn) changed the lead a couple years back to declare Timbaland plagiarised this other track. WP:NPOV concern? Timbaland admitted to "sampling" the song but I'm not sure declaring "plagiarism! Theft!" ("theft" was used on the article before I reworded it) is the way to present this.  Ss  112   08:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that he's wrong both in documenting writing credits, and lacks a consensus to make the edit. But if he's stopped after the final warning, we can leave it at that, unless/until he does it again. Sergecross73   msg me  19:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll look at the controversy page I'm just crazy busy at the moment. Sergecross73   msg me  19:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism pt 27
Serge's 27th iteration of his own personal WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Feel free to report anything you feel may need admin intervention. Sergecross73  msg me  14:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See the Talk page. — Smuckola(talk) 16:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Sergecross73   msg me  17:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you able to delete a WP:COPYVIO edit record? — Smuckola(talk) 16:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone beat me to it with an indef. Sergecross73   msg me  17:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm talkin about Materialscientist forgot to delete the copyvio data that he blocked him for. — Smuckola(talk) 17:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, yeah, you did say that. Okay, revdel'd. Sergecross73   msg me  18:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Just reviving the WP:ROBOTIC arts, post-block. The whole edit history is exactly the same. — Smuckola(talk) 05:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. (Why in the world would they go out of their way to "no wiki" the plain list formatting??) Sergecross73   msg me  14:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I heard the most insanely daft thing once, that they let just anybody edit this site. That can't be true. That would be the world's biggest magnet for codependent abuse-mongering. — Smuckola(talk) 22:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * National Football League team captains needs protection as is being disruptive by continuing to remove CN tags that I've played (honestly most of it should be removed for being trivial anyway) instead of trying to actually source the claims. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Protected. Sergecross73   msg me  02:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Lost Cause of the Confederacy needs protection, doesn't it? When has any IP editor ever done anything but abuse there? And the same dumb routine abuse. — Smuckola(talk) 22:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Protected. Sergecross73   msg me  02:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I Still Have Faith in You. is simply just WP:NOTGETTINGIT, has been asked to stop making threads on the article talk page on the same topic (where they have made three threads on the same topic), and has now resorted to editing while logged out on Special:Contributions/82.30.179.96 to make the same style of edit to the article. They are claiming a chart published by New Zealand's official chart publisher is "not official" and retaining it on the article is somehow "misleading" readers. It's just disruption at this point. I don't know whether the user has done enough to be blocked or if the page should be protected, but I assume if the article is protected Coachtripfan will just edit the article while logged in.  Ss   112   16:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Protected page, warned them to stop on the talk page, will warn/block if they are able to, and proceed to, edit war if the protection doesn't stop them. Sergecross73   msg me  16:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Still hasn't given up..., now editing logged in, complaining at the article talk page and their talk page now. I don't think I've ever come across an editor making such a fuss over one chart on one article before. But I do note that they're complaining over things at other ABBA song talk pages..., . From their edits they've been obsessed with ABBA topics for years. It's just come to a head as of late.  Ss   112   00:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Just check out the user talk page, dang. It started with tag bombing, and he's still just obsessively edit warring pointless tags. This is after having been extensively lectured by countless people about all his wrongs, via edit messages and the talk pages. I hope the mess has been cleaned up but it's becoming a minor warpath. This sucks. Totally pointless and incoherent. — Smuckola(talk) 02:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I left them another note on their talk page. I agree that they're a bit much. Sergecross73   msg me  03:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My friend, you usually totally overlook edit warring, but he's been explicitly belligerent against all policy about edit warring and about his super-pointless underlying agenda. All he's doing is obsessive and unencyclopedic content dumping and tag bombing. I've left the edit warring there for you to deal with, as so many others already have dealt with. He's replaced this one alone, many times today alone. Check out this wall of fancruft he apparently dumped from mariowiki, which I haven't dealt with after I already reverted this one. That was a bazillion spammed edits for solid days. His concern level about offending anyone or about not being blocked is nearly zero. — Smuckola(talk) 06:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Calling this vandalism is a bit of a stretch. I've been chatting with them, and they've asked for help on what they were doing wrong that caused the reverts, to which I replied on what they've been doing that looks bad. The "spamming" of edits is them saving often. They've specified that they want to cover development and appearance info for the characters, and they were inspired by my progress on the rewrite of Mario. Please acknowledge all of this is in the best faith possible and they aren't looking to argue. Their concern level for being blocked isn't because they don't care, it's because they don't know what they're doing wrong. Panini! 🥪 13:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, he needs to slow down, as he's being prolific with his (unnecessary) tagging and fictional plot bloating, but I agree that I don't think it's vandalism. It's misguided, but I do think it's in good faith. I'll keep an eye on it and step in if he's clearly exhausting many editors patience, but I think we need to cut him some slack while he's learning too. We have to remember that Wikipedia style writing can be hard to grasp at first. It appears most people naturally gravitate to "let's list off all 30 times Bowser made a game appearance" rather than "let's illustrate his real-world significance". It's not BLP or sensitive social/political stuff, so we can afford to work with them a little bit. Sergecross73   msg me  14:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I'll continue to help them through the process. Panini! 🥪 15:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: Another Admin blocked him because he had a meltdown after being told to stop his problematic edits so many times. Sergecross73   msg me  15:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * All countless disruptive edits since just about forever. — Smuckola(talk) 02:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. -- ferret (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sergecross73   msg me  15:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Vandalism only. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 05:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Final-warned. Sergecross73   msg me  17:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This blocked user was a deliberate and belligerent abuser who now just keeps spamming his Talk page with inane and trivial edit requests written to nobody. Is that an abuse of blocked Talk page, because he clearly has zero interest in getting unblocked? Should that be revoked? I dont know the policy. I guess I'll just ignore it on my watchlist and let him go away. — Smuckola(talk) 21:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're better served by just ignoring blocked users editing their user talk, unless it's particularly disruptive or requires reversion/revdel. Don't give them attention. Unwatch him. -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean, technically, the talk page access post-block is primarily for unblock request related comments. But in reality, he'll stop soon regardless. His account isn't very old and there's likely no one watching his talk page that's going to make edits he's requesting, so he'll stop when he sees no ones listening and he's not accomplishing anything. Sergecross73   msg me  22:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * lol I'm sure you're right. Just checking. — Smuckola(talk) 23:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This user mostly spams nonsensical redirects and overall junk edits, blowing off warnings with silly cherry-picked excuses and denial. — Smuckola(talk) 02:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Warned along with another admin. I get the vibe they may retire too. We'll see. Sergecross73   msg me  17:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, I would like an explanation of why I keep seeing this phenomenon of an IP address with a "blocked" banner but still being able to edit. A lot, on various IP addresses, for a long time. This particular IP address has a lot of vandalism peppered in among merely useless edits, such as this. I'm just confused how that happens. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 21:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that that IP is showing up as currently blocked for you? For me, it says he was only blocked in February for a month. Sergecross73   msg me  01:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It says "Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse." What does that ambiguous message come from and can't it just be blocked? Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 17:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just a talk page banner that is placed on IPs that represent anonymous locations like libraries or schools, etc. Talk page banners never have anything to do directly with blocks. They're just notices. -- ferret (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you block ? They have been adding hoax content to Disney Infinity articles for a long time. This IP wanted to wish additional character packs and Disney Infinity 4.0 into existence, but this is not gonna work. OceanHok (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, especially with that block log. Done. Sergecross73   msg me  13:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yo
Stop talking to me. Louis Waweru Talk  04:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then stop doing things that require a warning. I'm not particularly looking to keep talking arguing with you. If I make any further comments on your talk page, it'll likely be to notify you of being blocked, if you don't stop with all this disruption. Sergecross73   msg me  11:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit on Zelda Ocarina of Time Genre and other parts in the article
As you may be aware I recently edited the article for ocarina of time, the reason being upon reading up on what classifies and open world game and as well as reading the source already cited for it being an action-adventure open world game cited as source 1 right next to the genre in the Gameplay Section, the article itself is referencing open world games.

Having other game developers who also believe this game is open world to the extent the genre is talked about, most notably Square Enix through twitter when it acknowledged that the open world aspects of FFXV were inspired by ocarina of times open world elements (source :, )

As such I felt the addition of the genre open-world to the genres section was a justified update as the source was already inside the Wikipedia Zelda Ocarina of Time section (see [|source 1]) while classifying it as semi open-world was probably incorrect as it would have to just be classified as Open World, since there is no genre for Semi Open World.

Would love a reply to know if I may re-do the modifications to the wiki article as I believe the rest to be correct. Also I don't know if this is the proper place to open up this sort of discussion or if I would have to open up a talk in the Ocarina of Time section, I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing so if so, please let me know so that I may post this discussion over there :)

Greetings Spazetpastroni (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. Yes, feel free to start any discussion on any talk page, really. You can add a reliably sourced mention of being "open world" in the body of the article, but it shouldn't go in the "genre" field of the infobox. There have been extensive discussions and the result is that "open world" is a descriptor, but not a genre per se. There's also the background that open world has been contested in the past. While you can explore some open areas, most of the game has a pretty set order to its progression. You you may get hit with that. FYI, the article is rated a Featured Article. So that means it's received the highest level of review and scrutiny. That doesnt mean it's perfect. But it means it's received a lot of attention already. So there may be reasons why certain info isn't in the article - it's likely not an oversight. Sergecross73   msg me  22:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer
I suppose I will leave the article as is, although I would like to add that it has some open-world elements to it I suppose as you have put it, the article has been reviewed quite thoroughly already and it's probably not a mistake, interesting to know that open-world is not considered a genre, very useful piece of insight :) keep up the good work.

Spazetpastroni (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC) 
 * Thank you for understanding. Please keep editing Wikipedia. You've got the right mindset. So many people get so upset when they realize that Wikipedia isn't the same as Twitter or Reddit where people can write whatever they want. You've got the right flexible mindset to be a very good Wikipedia editor, in my opinion. Sergecross73   msg me  22:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Filmomusico back to their same infobox habits
Hi Serge. I don't know if you remember, but earlier this year I came to you regarding their unnecessary changes to infobox parameters (seemingly allergic to including parameters that weren't filled out, like alt=) as well as their addition of unsourced genres. In the intervening months, they were temporarily blocked indefinitely for using multiple accounts, and just a few days ago, given a warning by another admin for editing other editors' talk page comments while an ANI complaint was filed over the same thing (with others telling them to stop there too).

They seemingly stayed away from creating or fiddling with album articles for a while, but now they're back to the same habits: removing the required alt= and spaces from infoboxes,, .... and that's just three examples. They've been creating album articles for a bunch of German gothic metal bands that are hardly notable (some have one German metal blog as a source) with unsourced genre assumptions intact as well.

I haven't warned them again or interacted with them today. As you might remember, they were constantly trying to find loopholes or excuses to do the same things, so any interaction on my part again would just be exhausting. They apparently have some compulsion to fiddle with things, judging by the infobox maiming and now refactoring of others' comments, as well as a habit to return to doing things they shouldn't or said they would not. You gave them a final warning of sorts on talk page months ago...looks like they haven't learned anything.  Ss  112   13:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion on their talk page. Just an fyi, you don't have to participate if you dont want to. Sergecross73   msg me  13:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you already blocked them for three days, but if you can believe this..."correcting" the formatting of and responding to an IP editor on my talk page. After an ANI thread was started for this very practice of theirs the other day. And while responding to you on their talk page, saw fit to revert me twice because I apparently haven't added alt= to every other article on Wikipedia(?) They've learned exactly nothing in this time and I doubt they will over the next 72 hours either.  Ss   112   02:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * So, after Filmomusico's block expired yesterday, they returned and created a page on a film. I looked at the infobox, and sure enough, no alt=, no empty parameters and they're using line breaks to separate entries even when this can be a problem for visually impaired readers that use screen readers, so Template:Infobox film says to use a plainlist or ubl. I pointed this out, and Filmomusico two hours removed this saying "My article - my way!" then re-added the alt= parameter saying "Are you happy, retards?" then removed it again. They've also reverted other users over claims they made that are not in a source. Oh, and also, you're apparently a "troll", and I was apparently "harassing" them. This editor has proven they're bad news and has gone against the promises they made when they were begging for an unblock (unless they really thought alt= just applies to music articles?). Speaking generally, I think if you're not going to do the right thing when you think editors aren't scrutinising your edits, your words when they are are just talk. Added to having to be pressured to disclose their alternate account; incivility; messing with other users' talk page messages; unsourced content even after their block...I'm starting to think enough rope has been given at this point, and I'm not alone. (They've also copied my talk page notice to their own, and added that they're being "attacked" by "socks and meatpuppeteers"....I don't see any evidence this could be anything but an attempted dig at you or I, or both.)  Ss  112   05:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I called you names, ok.--Filmomusico (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't care for your fake apologies. You've proven you can't be trusted, and you've called Sergecross73 a "troll" and have clearly intended for us to be the "socks and meatpuppeteers" you refer to in the talk page notice you half copied from me (because if it's not us apparently "attacking" you, who else, by your definition, is?). If you think being held to account after your block is "harassment", you're delusional. By all rights next time it should be indefinite.  Ss  112   06:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Sergecross73   msg me  14:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 '''Wishing Sergecross73 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU''' (T) 01:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Can't believe it's been 9 years! Sergecross73   msg me  01:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The IDs always added Alternative chart, but it has charted on Hot Rock & Alternative Songs
Hi, Sergecross73, recently I found a article "Bite Me (song)". The IDs 120.29.70.161 and 120.29.70.186, they always added Alternative chart, but according to WP:Charts, if a song has charted on Hot Rock & Alternative Songs, it can't add Hot Alternative Songs chart. The id even scolded me "shit", please help me solving the problem. Tim96144 (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've protected the page for a week. You might want to leave a note about this on the article talk page for future reference. It didn't appear the IP was trying to work with you, but it's good to try at least. Sergecross73   msg me  13:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Tim96144 (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

2nd FAR on heavy metal music
Hey again. I started the 2nd FA review on heavy metal music. You have been involved on the article, so I'm notifying you. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've commented there. Sergecross73   msg me  13:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)