Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For labour on the History of AI and AI Winter, thanks for making them look more like science! --Jaibe 09:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	You rock. Alarbus (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your great work on AI topics! (and for your contribution to my music year of 1993...) Ijon (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Fake heading has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sentience, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Will (check to confirm | 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) 09:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:TheBigORecordCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:OrientalHeadRecordCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:TheNIghtOfHalloweenRecordCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:TheOpheliasRecordCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, CharlesGillingham. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TheOpheliasRecordCover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TheNIghtOfHalloweenRecordCover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OrientalHeadRecordCover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Musical eras has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Aza24 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:History of European art music has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Aza24 (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Music history by region has been nominated for speedy renaming to Category:Music history by country. Please see WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Artificial intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexa. 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) 07:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You wrote: Talk:Computational_creativity#Merge_of_artificial_creativity. Good start. Please see my comments here: Talk:Computational_creativity#Merge_from_Artificial_imagination,_Creative_computing_and_Artificial_intelligence_art. More may need to be done here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chinese room, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anatoly Dneprov.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You deleted my text and wrote: "The Game is not an argument in the philosophy of mind, and this article is about Searle's argument, not one element of his thought experiment". This is incorrect, because The Game (1961) is "an argument in the philosophy of mind". Possibly you are not familiar with this style of writing of philosophical arguments --- it is called Socratic dialogue, originates from Greece and is popular in East Europe including Bulgaria and Russia. I am familiar with these facts because Bulgaria is neighboring country of Greece. Thus, The Game (1961) is the original argument in Russian that contains both the Chinese room and the China brain arguments. Obviously, the American philosophers have plagiarized The Game as they have not cited it. I do not know any of the two philosophers who are credited separately for the Chinese room (1980) and the China brain (1978) to have stated publicly that they know to read and understand Russian language. During the cold war between the Soviet Union and USA, ideas were stolen by both sides without referencing the other. This ended in the 1990s with the end of the Soviet Union. In the course of 20 years (from 1960s to 1980s) after the publication of Dneprov's work, his story The Game was split into two arguments, although in the original it was combined into a single experiment. I would advise you to go and read the whole story before making further edits. In case you do not understand Russian, here is the full tri-lingual version (Russian-English-Bulgarian) prepared by me (I understand perfectly Russian and have verified every word in all 3 languages) of Dneprov A. The game. Knowledge—Power 1961; №5: 39-41. PDF. A direct quote from the article shows that it is a philosophical argument: "I think our game gave us the right answer to the question `Can machines think?' We've proven that even the most perfect simulation of machine thinking is not the thinking process itself." The original scan of the Russian journal is added as appendix to my translation. The Game is published in the May 1961 issue, just when the Soviet Union beat the USA to send the first human in the outer space -- that is why Yuri Gagarin is on the journal cover. p.s. Please include back the material that you deleted. I would not object if you edit it to suit your own vision of neutrality. Danko Georgiev (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevertheless, this is an article about Searle's argument, not about all arguments of this form. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added Dneprov's name to the first paragraph (along with the other precursors mentioned in the history section). Is this acceptable? You may have noticed that, in my last edit, I made sure the article no longer gave any precedence to Searle for this kind of critique. It just says that he is the author of this specific critique.

But I still don't agree that your edits were good idea. Since my previous answer was a bit glib, so I thought I would flesh it out.

My goal here is strictly editorial. Every article has a topic, and it's an editor's job to keep all the material in the article on topic. The title of this article is "Chinese Room", which is a specific thought experiment, not a general approach to these problems. "The Game" and the "Chinese Room" are two different critiques of AI. This article is about only one of them.

Everything in this article is specific to the "Chinese Room" version of this idea. Nothing in this article is about "the Game", or other similar arguments or thought experiments (except the two paragraphs in "History"). The Replies are all from people who replied to Searle's argument, not "The Game". The clarifications in the Philosophy and Computer Science were made by people trying to clarify Searle's version of the idea, not "The Game". Searle's Complete Argument is made by Searle, not by Dnepov. There is hardly a sentence in this article that isn't reporting some bit of academic dialog about Searle's version. None of this academic dialog was about Dneprov's version.

Perhaps American academics should have paid more attention to Dnepov's version. Like you, I have no idea if any of the participants in this 40 year long argument even knew the Dneprov version existed. Perhaps Dneprov's version deserved a bigger footprint in the philosophy of mind, or the history of philosophy. Perhaps one day it will receive that kind of attention. All that might be true. But:

We are merely editors. We report, we do not correct. We can't rewrite academic history from Wikipedia. This article summarizes the 10,000 pages of academic argument that his been published in reaction to Searle's version. That's what the article is. Thanks to you, now it mentions Dnepov as one of the people who had the same idea, quite a bit earlier. But Dneprov's version is not the topic of the article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finally, would you object to moving this conversation to the talk page of Chinese Room? I think it belongs there. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Charles, thank you very much for the explanations of your thoughts on the editing process. I will not mind if you move the conversation to another talk page if you want. Because I work daily on scientific projects, my thought process is focused mainly on veracity of ideas or arguments. Consequently, I can give you reasons for or against some proposition, but I will leave it up to you to decide what to do. In regard to your general attitude to separate Dneprov's argument and Searle's argument, it is factually incorrect because the Chinese language is not essential to characterize Searle's argument! Consider this: The Chinese room makes no sense to 1.5 billion Chinese citizens who are native speakers of Chinese! All these Chinese people will perform the manipulations and they will understand Chinese, thereby invalidating Searle's conclusion! Only from this global viewpoint that Searle's argument is meaningless to 1.5 billion native Chinese (i.e. 1/3 of all people on Earth!), you can understand the importance of my original edit in Wikipedia where I stated that Searle "proposed Americanized version" of the argument. "Americanized version" means that it makes sense to Americans, but may not make sense to people living in other parts of the world. In particular, if Chinese philosophers want to teach Searle's Chinese room in their philosophy textbooks, the only way to achieve the goal intended by the author is to change the language to some language that they do not understand like the "American room". Now, after I have demonstrated to you that the word "Chinese" in the "Chinese" room is not defining the argument, it is clear that Dneprov's argument is exactly the same argument written for Russians and using Portuguese language that Russians do not understand. What matters from historical viewpoint and in terms of attribution is that it precedes by ~20 years Searle's publication. A philosophical argument is defined by the general idea of proof and the final conclusion. Dneprov uses (1) people to simulate the working of an existing 1961 Soviet computing machine named "Ural", which translates a sentence from some language A to another language B. (2) The people do not understand language A, neither before, nor after they perform the translation algorithm. (3) Therefore, the executing of the translation algorithm does not provide understanding. Final conclusion intended by Dneprov using the technique of Socratic dialogue (i.e. the words are spoken by the main story character "Prof. Zarubin") is that machines cannot think. Searle's argument is identical except for the number of people involved in the translation (1 or many it does not matter) and the specific choices of languages A and B. My general attitude to contribute to Wikipedia is that the English version is for all mankind, and not only for Americans. Therefore, articles should be written from a country neutral perspective and sensitivity to the fact that most Wikipedia users are non-native English speakers across the globe. p.s. If you find a version of Searle's argument written by someone before 1961, then definitely send me a copy of the original text and I will advocate for the attribution of "Chinese room" to the first person who clearly formulated steps (1), (2) and (3) in the argument. Danko Georgiev (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still think you're misunderstanding our role here.

This is an encyclopedia article about a historically notable conversation in philosophy. The historical conversation has already happened. We can only report what the conversation was. We can't report what the conversation should have been.

We don't write what we, ourselves, think is true. We report what notable philosophers said. We don't try to put words into their mouth, or rebuild the subject for them. We try to explain what they said, who they said it to, and what the context was, without putting our own spin on it.

So it actually doesn't matter if you're right about this -- if Dnepov was making exactly the same argument. This article can't give the impression that the entire field of philosophy says the same things you do, even if you're right. Again, none of the other people cited in this article think they were writing about Dneprov. Harnad, Dennett, Dreyfus, Chalmers, McGinn, all of them --- they weren't writing about Dneprov. That might not even have heard of Dneprov. They were writing about Searle.

That's what we have to report -- what they thought. We can't take into account what we think. What we think has no place in Wikipedia. So you don't need to keep arguing for this -- no matter how good you're argument is, it doesn't effect the 'editorial' issue.---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have replied on Talk:Chinese_room Danko Georgiev (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Cite any has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neats and scruffies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agent.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Artificial intelligence

added links pointing to Facial recognition, Hiring, Classifier and Amazon

Artificial general intelligence

added a link pointing to Strong AI

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Artificial intelligence

added links pointing to Hiring and Emergent

Philosophy of artificial intelligence

added a link pointing to Stuart Russell

Symbolic artificial intelligence

added a link pointing to Production rule

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Computational tools for artificial intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Production rule.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CharlesGillingham

about the article Artificial intelligence :

I'd like to ask for consensus to add a section on specialized AI hardware.

the rationale for this is that talking about a type of software without the corresponding hardware makes the subject incomplete.

there are already Wikipedia articles on this subject which I will list below.

• Neuromorphic engineering
• Event camera
• JAIC
• Physical neural network
• Memristor RJJ4y7 (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe, but it would have to be short -- just a sentence, really. (As you probably noticed I just carefully edited the article from 34 pages of main text down to 21 pages, which is still WP:TOO LONG) You could add a full paragraph one level down, perhaps in artificial neural network or even machine learning. Another good choice would be to create an AI hardware or Specialized hardware for artificial intelligence article and do a full a treatment there (to do it right, you would also add section headers for Lisp machine and all other specialized hardware you know about, each with the template ((expand section)). Look at the current state of Applications of AI.) Then your one-sentence mention in AI could link to something more complete. What do you think? I'm really just encouraging you to think about the big picture, to try to see that we have the right level of detail in the right article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, do you mind if I move this discussion to Talk:Artificial intelligence? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind, I see you already did. ---- 19:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Outline of artificial intelligence

added links pointing to Functionalism, Production rule and Production system

Embodied cognition

added a link pointing to Rafael Núñez

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Outline of artificial intelligence

added a link pointing to Production system

Weak AI

added a link pointing to Strong AI

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Your edit here introduced a duplicate ref name error. (Search for 'cite error:' in the versions before and after your edit.) I have since fixed this error. --Palosirkka (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 5 November 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Pamela McCorduck, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi CharlesGillingham,

My name is Lara Yang, and I am a PhD student in Organizational Behavior at Stanford University. As a part of a research study to better understand work dynamics on Wikipedia, our research team is currently conducting interviews with Wikipedians. Because you are an active editor on Wikipedia, we would love to learn more about your work and hear your perspective on how Wikipedia, and open-source communities in general, function to produce and organize high-quality knowledge. We have done our best to learn about the dynamics of collaboration on Wikipedia from secondary sources, which we are hoping to complement with your invaluable first-hand insights. The interview will take around 45 minutes and be semi-structured in format. Any identifying information in your responses will be kept strictly confidential, and will not be disclosed in the analysis nor the research paper. If you are interested in participating, please email me at larayang@stanford.edu or via the 'Email this user' tool on my user page and suggest a few time slots in the upcoming weeks that work best for you. We will do our best to accommodate your schedule. Should you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to let us know. We look forward to hearing from you.

Best, Lara aka Wanderingpotato (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd very interested in participating in your research. I'm going to be working here for the next few months.

Sorry for the 10-month late reply -- I've semi-retired. I come back every few years to update and clean up the work I did 2008-2015. I will be around for the next few months. ----CharlesTGillingham (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw that you were an experienced editor interested in artificial intelligence and wanted to see if you were willing to review the changes I've requested at Talk:Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence with a disclosed COI. ~~~~ LauTad89 (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm now realising I should probably moated it here instead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Fake heading has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frostly (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Charles,

Looks like you also added a NPOV template on the Symbolic AI article. What do you feel is biased? There is a section on controversies. Is it related to whether the term GOFAI is used or not? Or something else? It is discussed in the controversy section.

One problem I have with GOFAI is that it is a perjorative term, as used currently and Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV for an article on symbolic AI.

It seems Haugeland's arguments against symbolic AI -- as it was in the 80s when his book came out -- assume that those in symbolic AI accept all parts of the physical symbol hypothesis and also believe symbolic AI is sufficent for AGI itself, as opposed to being a useful part of AI that has made significant contributions and continues to make them (e.g., ontology). Neither is the case.

It is true some in symbolic AI were guilty of hubris then, although some of Hinton's predictions about radiologists being out of work are also bombastic.

I'm not sure if you think some claims in the article are too strong, or if you feel Haugeland is being treated unfairly, or if you feel that symbolic AI should be called GOFAI.

We could explain that many people use it that way, but it is considered perjorative and is inaccurate.

I hope we can find some compromise.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of artificial intelligence has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]