User talk:MGA73

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65

Category:Insectimages.org needing review

Dear User:MPF and User:MGA73 and User:Lymantria,

The rest of the images in the above category are unfree and many are under DR. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• PS: I think there are maybe 267 images (or 255 when I checked last) of images from this website: https://www.invasive.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=
• But most of them have not been categorised here: Category:Images from Invasive.org has only 72 images. Maybe your MGA bot can do this? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Please see this search result Also some invasive images have not been reviewed...but this should be simple to do as their images are licensed as CC BY 3.0 US. Nothing like the nightmare of forest images where the license was changed to NC and we have to use the insect images source which are both run by Bugwood. Bugwood also runs invasive.org and IPM images. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Great! I have marked forrestryimages and insectimages. Invasive.org is next on my list. --MGA73 (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I added 95 files to fix to my list yesterday user:MGA73/Sandbox. Generally files that have been reviewed will be ignored. My bot will try to add the source template and that will add the files to the category. If we want allready reviewed images to be in the category we can either try to add the template or add the category manually. --MGA73 (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: I'm sorry but I thought you could ask your bot to add Category:Images from Invasive.org to the 97 images. But altogether there must be more than 250+ Invasive images altogether. Most of the time, people just give a direct http link and so the category does not show up. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I can add the files to the category but the categories often include a text like:

"Images are placed in this category using {{Invasiveorg|image number}}."

I thought it was best to focus on the files that still need a review before we spend time putting the files in the category. Sometimes the files mention forrestryimages without the files is clearly from that site (for example "See more files at forrestryimages ..."). But I will try to add the template to files that are allready reviewed and if that is not possible I will just add the category like "Category:Images from Invasive.org". --MGA73 (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• OK. By the way, I cannot find a source for this image: File:Ext eppo xylotrechus-2.jpg and it does not seem to be from Invasive unlike this image where I located the source: File:Xylotrechus chinensis 5595307-PPT.jpg Maybe you should tag it as no source or no permission if you think it is right. I have to go to bed soon. Thanks, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• PS: When this uploader gives source statements like in this other image: File:Xylotrechus chinensis - bdca6243-fdbd-4ee8-b4cf-3dbab6a01c6c.jpg I don't know if this uploader is credible. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment: This Category:Insectimages.org needing review is now filled with unfree and or images under DR. I did not deal with this image File:Ext eppo xylotrechus-2.jpg but cannot find a source for it. Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello again! I have now added the files to the different categories in Category:Bugwood Network image sources. --MGA73 (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Thank You. I think everything is fixed now. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you too. Sadly there are thousands of unreviewed files from other sources. --MGA73 (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

File:John Q. Hammons statue.jpg

File:John Q. Hammons statue.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Abzeronow (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

4 final images

Dear Michael,

If you can, please just review these images below.

• File:Alfalfa weevil (Hypera postica).jpg
• File:Striga hermonthica 1148109.jpg
• File:Callinectes bocourti 5431017.jpg
• File:Callinectes bocourti 5431018.jpg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Done! --MGA73 (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thank You. I checked for crab and plant species on the forestry/insect/invasive website and notice almost all photos taken by individual persons are licensed as CC BY NC 3.0 as oppposed to these PD images from the US Government. Thanks, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Zale helata 2019.jpg

Dear Michael,

Could you please kindly review this image uploaded by me please? I don't know what is the problem. Naturalist passed my other images. Thank You in advance, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Allready reviewed. Seems the file you uploaded was not the original file. --MGA73 (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: I should thank Loopy but I thought there was only one image showing the caterpillar. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

These 2 Deletion Requests below

Dear Michael,

• Perhaps, this DR and this DR should really be closed as delete. It is more than 7 days now. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about those. They were deleted a few days ago. --MGA73 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Logo-Universität-Bamberg-blau.png

File:Logo-Universität-Bamberg-blau.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

PaFra (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

This Category

Dear Michael,

I am a bit busy but if you have a bit of time, please feel free to review the few portugal images in this category...which have good camera metadata. Apparently the flickrbot made a mistake here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done --MGA73 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Thank You for your time. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

For review

Hi! Can you reviewed the license for File:NSƯT Thái Sơn.png, File:Diễn viên Ngân Hòa.png, File:Trung Ruồi.png. Thank you Lubinh123 (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done --MGA73 (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

User User:Superzerocool

Dear Michael,

I discovered that this VRTS user made a major mistake between October 8, 2014 to October 19, 2014 when uploading images. He reviewed his own uploads such as:

• File:WLM14ES - Monasterio de Veruela 79 - .jpg & File:WLM14ES - 22092013 122706 POXZ1 0458 - .jpg by Tural Jones and
• File:WLM14ES - Creu de terme de la Capella del Remei, o Creu del Remei. Moià. El Bages - MARIA ROSA FERRE.jpg

Could he do this?? Before and after this time, he used flickrreview again but from my check with Internet archive, although Tural Jones deleted all his Commons images on flickr, Internet Archive saved (most of) the original sources with the image in 2019 and the free license. BUT, the Internet archive did not have any information with MARIA ROSSA FEERRE's images. Does Common need to rereview this users uploads in this time period...and maybe delete the MARIA ROSA FERRE images? I don't know why Superzerocool did this but he has been away from Commons since 2024 and I don't have time to check hundreds of images sadly as I did here If this procedure needs to be done, only your bot can do this as I have been very tired recently. I am tired almost every single day now. I am sure it is more than 2400 images--maybe 3000+ images. Sigh! I don't have time to fix 2400-3000 mistakes by this person. Before, I was made a trusted user, Abigor/SterkeBak officially told me not to review my own uploads...but then I never did such a thing for my images even before.

I cannot handle 2400-3000 images but maybe other Admins or trusted users can check with Internet Archive? Some other images from other different flickr accounts still have the images on flickr with free licenses and I just order an independent review as in this case. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for pinging me. This file was a batch upload for Wiki Loves Monuments Spain taken from flickr to Commons. This upload was made with my personal account and not by bot account. So, to notice, VTRS permission (or OTRS permissions) was granted in november 2014, AFTER uploading photos. Kindly, Superzerocool (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thanks Superzerocool for confirming the permission. There was no COM:VRTS ticket for these images so I was confused and ordering new reviews such as here: File:WLM14ES - Casa de la Vila, Sant boi de Llobregat, Baix Llobregat - MARIA ROSA FERRE (1).jpg and File:WLM14ES - Celler del Sindicat de Vinicultors de Sarral, o Sindicat dels Rics, Sarral, Conca de Barberà - MARIA ROSA FERRE.jpg for the few free Maria Rosa Ferre images. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Hi Leoboudv! Just to be sure it has nothing to do with adding a VRTS template? The problem is that files were both uploaded and reviewed by Superzerocool?

Hi Superzerocool! I agree it is best not to review own uploads. You mention you have a bot. Perhaps you can use the bot to request a new review for the flickr files that are still on Flickr so "FlickreviewR 2" can do a review? Then we can figure out what to do with the rest of the files when we know the number of files. --MGA73 (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Only a bot can detect Superzerocool's uploads between October 8 until October 19, 2014 and I think a large percentage may face deletion because most of MARIA ROSSA FERRE's flickr image's license today is 'All Rights Reserved.' I reviewed these images by Tural Jones using the Internet Archive source: File:WLM14ES - CS 24072004 ^181228 ^05249 - .jpg & File:WLM14ES - Rubielos de Mora 00163 - .jpg but I won't lie to you--a few of his images flickr sources were not archived by Internet Archive--but maybe 90% were. So, there is hope here to save them...but I don't have time to check 2400 to 3000 images, I'm sorry. Maybe other trusted users or Admins can help? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

If the license changed we can see that on Flickr so that should not be a big problem (except for time). The biggest problem is if files are no longer on Flickr. --MGA73 (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: Tural Jones made all his flickr images private today. So, without Internet Archive, I could not locate the original image when the flickr source was archived in 2019. A few other Tural Jones photos were archived in 2024--to late--or not archived--but most were....and can be saved. The Maria Rossa Ferre images were not deleted but almost of her all images are ARR today. This is a rare exception: File:WLM14ES - Casa de la Vila, Sant boi de Llobregat, Baix Llobregat - MARIA ROSA FERRE (1).jpg Best and Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• File:WLM14ES - 05042007 172411 D 1891 - .jpg & File:WLM14ES - P1400884 - .jpg & File:WLM14ES - Monestir de Santa Maria de Ripoll 17 - sergio segarra.jpg have no Internet Archive source plus some more images from this Flickr Account and other flickr accounts. If you wish to do something like nominate a DR, go ahead. Two other images in this first image category were passed by me like this. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Dear MGA73,

Can you order your bot to place {{Flickrreview}} tags to image uploads by User:Superzerocool between 7:35 October 15, 2014 and 10:01 October 15, 2014. These images are freely licensed on flickr and should pass flickrreview. I predict that if you order flickrreviews for all the images which this user uploaded, 1500-2000+ images would eventually be deleted sadly. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Superzerocool has a bot it seems so that is why I suggested that Superzerocool did it. Per Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Add_an_outcome_of_LicenseReview it seems to be the general opinion that we should have an option to add a special template for files that can no longer be reviewed. Once alle files that can be reviewed are reviewed we will know how many files are left. And I think it would be a good idea to have a central discussion about all the files so we can either decide to delete or to keep them. --MGA73 (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thanks Michael for your reply. As far as I know, whenever I used Internet Archive, I get the right free license and right image from this uploader...if Internet Archive has information on a flickr image. Its too bad he messed things up by suddenly reviewing his own uploads. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Leoboudv and Superzerocool: I added the files to Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review (4,740 files). Lets see how many are left when Flickrbot is done. --MGA73 (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

4,557 files left. --MGA73 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

jum... I was "young and stupid" in these years, I recognize it. I remember to use some Flickr script to check the license, based on flickrbot (again, I was young and stupid, don't ask why I don't use flickrbot or similar). Anyway, if in 2025 we are not sure about the license, we must to delete it. My 2 cents, and sorry for this mistake from the past :( Superzerocool (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear MGA73,

• Most of these images face deletion right away because MARIA ROSA FERRE's flickr image sources were never archived by the Internet archive bot. Only some of the Tural Jones images can be saved. I wish I had time to go through 4,000+ images but I can't. All I can say is that the Tural Jones images which I reviewed were all free like this or this. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• File:WLM14ES - Portal dels Senyors d'Èvol, Guimerà, L'Urgell - MARIA ROSA FERRE.jpg is one of the Very few flickr images where Maria Ferre did not change the flickr license back to ARR. All the rest are ARR sadly. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment: I reviewed this File:WLM14ES - 05082012 182214 H 0065 - .jpg and File:WLM14ES - 05082012 181814 H 0054 - .jpg with Internet Archive but can't do 4,000 images sadly. Maybe other trusted users or Admins can use Internet Archive to check this category Michael? But the MARIA RESSA images in the unreviewed category are lost for sure. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Old maps of Denmark

Giver kategorierne i Category:Old maps of Denmark by municipality virkelig nogen mening på nuværende tidspunkt? De pågældende kommuner er endnu ikke 20 år gamle og filerne i dem er væsentligt ældre. Hjart (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC) For mig at se vil det give væsentligt mere mening at putte de filer i kategorier dækkende relevante landskaber eller byer.--Hjart (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hej Hjart! Mange tak for tilbagemeldingen. Som jeg skrev på Commons:Batch uploading/historiskekort.dk så vil jeg meget gerne have kommentarer, for jeg synes, at det er svært. Opdelingen er et forsøg på at undgå, at der kommer 2.000+ filer i Category:Old maps of Denmark. Ved at sortere dem efter kommuner, så kommer de trods at tættere på hvor de hører til. Jeg har lavet en sortering så en kommune kommer med hvis mindst 10 % af arealet hører til kommunen. Nogle af kortene dækker en del af en by mens andre dækker et relativt stort område. Fx vil det være svært at putte File:Jylland vest (Ringkøbing) (1806-1856) 2.jpg en kategori for relevante byer for der er måske 100+ byer på det udsnit. Jeg har ikke selv et bedre forslag end kommuner. Min tanke var, at når alle kortene er lagt op, så kan man jo godt gå til fx Category:Old maps of Slagelse Kommune og dele dem op i fx Korsør, Skælskør og Slagelse (i alt fald for de kort hvor de entydigt vedrører en by). Men der vil formentlig også komme nogle kort med over små bitte landsbyer som næppe har sin egen kategori på Commons. Min tanke var i øvrigt at hvis der er ca. 2.000 kort og ca. 100 kommuner, så vil der komme ca. 20 kort i hver kategori (eller 25 kort hvis vi tager højde for at nogle kan være i flere kategorier). --MGA73 (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Jylland vest (Ringkøbing) (1806-1856) 2.jpg f.eks. kunne til at starte med meget passende placeres i Category:Old maps of Jylland (se Category:Jylland). Altså landsdele istedet for kommuner. Se også f.eks. Category:Old maps of Oresund og Category:Old maps of Bornholm. Hjart (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Så hvis et kort vedrører flere kommuner så skal det i fx "Jylland" eller "Sjælland" eller "Fyn" i stedet for kommunerne? --MGA73 (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Det ser ud til at 546 kort er med i 2 kommmuner eller mere. Så er spørgsmålet om det skal gælde allerede ved 2 kommuner eller om det først skal være ved 3 kommuner. --MGA73 (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Lige præcis. Med de gamle kort der, vil det for mig at se give væsentligt mere mening, at placere dem efter landsdel. Hjart (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Takker! Det giver i alt fald mening for kort, der dækker store områder. Men jeg kan ikke lige gennemskue om fx et kort der viser København så vil havne i "Sjælland" fordi det jo viser både Københavns Kommune og Frederiksberg Kommune. Skal lige finde ud af om det letteste er at kategorisere efter kommune og så lade botten rette efterfølgende eller om det er lettest at fjerne kommunerne allerede ved upload. Jeg har også fået kort med fra Slesvig og de Vestindiske øer og dem havde jeg tænkt ikke at forsøge at "sortere" i første omgang men blot komme i en kategori for "Slesvig" og en for "De Vestindiske Øer". Det passer jo meget godt med dit forslag. --MGA73 (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hvad tænker du om kategorier som Category:1720s maps of Denmark på kort over Skåne, Slesvig og De Vestindiske Øer? Giver det mening hvis de var en del af Danmark dengang kortene blev tegnede? --MGA73 (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Der findes allerede en Category:Old maps of Copenhagen. Den kan fint komme i en Category:Old maps of Sjælland. Der er absolut ingen grund til at gøre kategoritræet mere finkornet end nødvendigt, så for mig er det fint at lade Category:1720s maps of Denmark være som den er. Om nødvendigt kan man forsyne kategorien med en forklaring. Hjart (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Så er filerne lagt op. Det viste sig at der var enkelte dokumenter, der ikke var kort men beskrivelser til kort. Men hvis man matcher kort og beskrivelse så giver det jo mening at beholde begge dele. Jeg lagde alle kortene op i kommune-kategorierne bortset fra dem der ikke umiddelbart kunne placeres i en kommune. Jeg tænkte at vente et par uger med at flytte filerne. Så har andre chance for at kommentere. Det blev i øvrigt ikke til Sjælland og Jylland men de engelske navne. --MGA73 (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Jeg ville meget foretrække de danske navne. Det irriterer mig grænseløst at skulle arbejde med de der fjollede udenlandske betegnelser for danske landskaber m.m. Hjart (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Du er velkommen til at ændre. Jeg valgte Zealand fordi overkategorien hed det. Mht. Jutland vs Jylland så så jeg lige at du kalder den danske del Jylland. Skal Slesvig så i den danske kategori fordi det var dansk dengang eller forvirrer det mindre ved at bruge den nuværende landebetegnelse? --MGA73 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Min hensigt med Category:Jylland var at den skulle dække de dele af halvøen, som nu er danske. For mig vil det være fint hvis kort over de dele, som nu er syd for den gældende landegrænse, kommer i Category:Jutland eller Schleswig-Holstein. Hjart (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Det lyder som en god løsning. Tror de fleste vil forbinde "Jylland" med den danske del. --MGA73 (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

For review

Hi! Can you reviewed the license for File:Đạo diễn Mr.Tô.png, File:Vicky Nhung.png, File:Yaya Trương Nhi.png, File:Lương Thế Thành.png, File:Hoài Lâm.png. Thank you Lubinh123 (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. --MGA73 (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

These Images

Dear Michael,

I searched all these high resolution images by ssegara's flickr account that were uploaded by Supercool. I managed to find the free license of some images with internet archive. However, maybe 80% of the images--some of which were missed by your bot--have no Internet Archive source and likely cannot be saved. You must decide which images to keep--if you wish to trust the uploader--or to delete the images that Supercool "reviewed."

These 3 images below that your bot missed were minor "miracles" since the flickr account owner (ssegara) did not delete the images on his small flickr photostream today and I ordered a new flickrreview.

• File:WLM14ES - Iglesia de Santa María (Laredo) - sergio segarra.jpg
• File:WLM14ES - Puente medieval de Besalú 5 - sergio segarra.jpg and
• File:WLM14ES - Iglesia de Santa María (Laredo) - sergio segarra.jpg

But all the other images were deleted by the flickr account owner. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. I do not know why I did not have all files on my list. I made a new list and try again. That should catch the missing files. --MGA73 (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

There was around 4,900 files and only 175 of those was passed by the Flickr bot. --MGA73 (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Dear Michael,

If your bot is unable to access Internet Archive to view these 9,000+ images, I am afraid this Category will exist here indefinitely. The other Admins and trusted users cannot handle this volume sadly and neither can I. Just to let you know. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I hope that someone can find a solution for those files. There are many users out there that are much better with a bot than I am. Thats why I posted on VP. --MGA73 (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Xhamea.jpg

File:Xhamea.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

YehudaHubert (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Vanessa Lee Chester.jpg

File:Vanessa Lee Chester.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Corundumconundrum (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)