User talk:Lambiam

Archives

Archive 1: January 2006 – March 2006 Archive 2: April 2006 – June 2006 Archive 3: July 2006 – September 2006 Archive 4: October 2006 – December 2006 Archive 5: January 2007 – March 2007 Archive 6: April 2007 – June 2007 Archive 7: July 2007 – September 2007 Archive 8: October 2007 – December 2007 Archive 9: January 2008 – March 2008 Archive 10: April 2008 – June 2008 Archive 11: July 2008 – September 2008 Archive 12: October 2008 – December 2008 Archive 13: January 2009 – December 2009 Archive 14: January 2010 – June 2010 Archive 15: July 2010 – December 2010 Archive 16: January 2011 – March 2011 Archive 17: April 2011 – June 2011 Archive 18: July 2011 – September 2011 Archive 19: October 2011 – December 2011 Archive 20: January 2012 – June 2012 Archive 21: July 2012 – December 2012 Archive 22: January 2013 – December 2015 Archive 23: January 2016 – December 2017 Archive 24: January 2018 – December 2019 Archive 25: January 2020 – December 2021

Feynman on ‘Why’

Thanks for posting the link to this video. Although I'm a big fan of his, I hadn't seen that one yet. The ‘cheating’ he explains at 6:45 reminds me of Gödel's first incompleteness theorem. ◅ Sebastian 11:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the "Need of closure for tasks"

You wrote The OP was asking explicitly for literature about need for closure about tasks, not for "random opinions" that is exactly right. Thank you! (it was discussed in the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities starting from the 2nd of Feb 2022) --Pier4r (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Why did you delete my answer here?

Here you deleted my answer and replaced it with your own. Why? --Jayron32 13:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I never saw your answer. Some glitch; whether my wetware's or someone else's software's is now lost in the dustbin of smashed bits.  --Lambiam 13:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It's all good. Thanks for fixing it! --Jayron32 13:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

A guidance request

Greetings @ Lambiam,

Many times I had requested for info @ reference desk humanities. Other than few curiosity driven queries most are for later referencing or research. Me being busy in multiple topics there is a time lag from my side in utilizing previous discussion. Though present archiving provides search facility still it is not structured enough to go back in more than few months old discussion.

Is there any bot which can help me in providing list of archived discussions I participated or some other way around which you may be aware of?

Many thanks for all the effort you always put in while providing information.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

You can search for your contributions while restricting the search to the Wikipedia namespace:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=&limit=5000&target=Bookku&namespace=4

The section titles of relevant contributions can be used to search the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives. For example, for the line "• 13:40, 19 November 2020 (diff |hist) . . (+1,556‎) . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Turkish language sources help request: new section)", the search string "Turkish language sources help request" leads to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 November 19 § Turkish language sources help request.  --Lambiam 08:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay I got the idea you are suggesting, I will try to work out some system of my own like saving section headings by adopting suggestion given by you. Many thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Tragedies and Disasters

I searched Google and the ones I found were... the Great Chicago fire 1871, Hurricane Katrina 2005, San Francisco earthquake 1906, the sack of Rome, the 2011 Joplin tornado, the 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens and the attack on Pearl Harbor. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Tragedies_and_Disasters) 81.152.221.235 (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

People in their 50s dying of old age

People in their 50s dying of old age

William Hartnell was about 55 years old when he played the original incarnation of the Doctor in Doctor Who and maybe 58 in his final story. While Richard Hurndall was about 72 or 73 when he played him in the 20th anniversary story The Five Doctors and David Bradley was 75 in the 12th Doctor's (Peter Capaldi) two final episodes The Doctor Falls and Twice Upon a Time. Here are images of 55 year old actors, 58, 72-73 and 75. And the cause of the First Doctor's regeneration was old age. 86.130.4.167 (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Can people die if they've become old, weak and worn out in their 50s? And did the original Doctor look about mid-50s, 60s or 70s? 86.130.4.167 (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

New message from Duonaut

Thanks again for finding that source. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

chinese book

i remembered more details and answered your questions, any thoughts? 2600:1700:9758:7D90:F1DF:BDC9:ECB4:8F4A (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2022_July_29#Recent_book_by_a_biologist - thanks for answers. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:PETTIFOG" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:PETTIFOG and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#Wikipedia:PETTIFOG until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 16:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

could you answer this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#legal_system_clarity. Grotesquetruth (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	thanks for the unwavering quality information and being able to comprehend questions correctly. Grotesquetruth (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

thankyou

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Governance_structure

Thank you very much for taking the time to clear up my confusion. Grotesquetruth (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	special mention of the sheer perseverance you hold! Grotesquetruth (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

hi

how do I create a barnstar column like yours in my user page? could you guide me through if you don't mind? do I use some specific code? Grotesquetruth (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you should wait until someone actually gives you a barnstar. In general, if you want to see the wikicode that achieves some effect, just click "Edit" (or "View source" on a protected page). If you are using the visual editor, make sure to switch to source editing, or you will not see the wikicode.  --Lambiam 19:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Reference desk confusion

Hi, Lambiam. I don't mean to insult or belittle you, but in that reference desk thread, you accused me of "building my questions on false premises." I don't see how I was intentionally doing so, I was merely going by what you had said in a separate thread. It was you who originally put forward the idea that there was no explosion and that this non-explosion ("fireball," as you described it) was only present on the north side of the building where the plane entered, away from the South Tower. Your words, not mine. If my question was indeed built on false premises, they were certainly not false premises I had come up with; they were invented by you, and I was merely seeking clarification on whether or not your claims were true. Hmm1994 (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

References

I did my best to answer your question, but then I was chided by an old hand at the Reference desk for trying. First I thought the issue was that the original question was too meaningless to be discussed, but that was not the reason. Instead, I was told, "One cannot meaningfully answer a question built on false premises. Instead, we need to provide clarification and seek further information as to what the question asker wants to know." I was puzzled, because I could not detect any false premises. I apologized, but (as I also stated in my last post in the thread) I still do not understand what was wrong with the question and am as puzzled as you are. I hope this clarifies the issue.  --Lambiam 10:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you for clearing that up. Apologies for assuming you were accusing me on purpose. I might ask the admin how the question was based on false pretenses. Hmm1994 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Abdi Ipekci Monument Photo

Hi @Lambiam. I'm just wondering if you are the author/photographer of the image of the sculpture

The Abdi İpekçi Peace Monument in 2006 at the Abdi İpekçi Street

that is being discussed in the Good Article Nomination of the sculptures sculptor at Talk:Gürdal Duyar/GA1? Gazozlu (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes,  fixed.  --Lambiam 20:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix! Gazozlu (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

"Planck's law and Hz−1" on the other side

Hi Lambiam, as I appreciate your answers and your analyze (effectively I am French and I think you are turkish living in Istambul area), I will ask you a private science question. In this extract of Graeme Bartlett answer "...Or you could look at the energy in one cycle of the emission. But that last one will still depend on the frequency and bandwidth...". More precisely, if you look at "E=hv", isn't there something that surprises you in this answer ? I am interested in corresponding with you for a publication that I'm about to write, may be at 4 hand with you if you are interested.

Thanks Malypaet (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You are correct in observing that W·sr⁻¹·m⁻²·Hz⁻¹ is the same unit as J·sr⁻¹·m⁻². Its dimension in base quantities is ${\mathsf {MT^{{-}2}}},$ so viewed that way there is a time component. Since a physicist does not see a conflict, it is difficult to answer the question, "How should we understand, interpret or justify this conflict?" It is like the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" The usual concept of a quantity being time dependent is that the quantity is not constant but varies with time, and not that the units expressing them have a time dimension. These two are unrelated: the speed of light has dimension ${\mathsf {LT^{{-}1}}},$ yet it is constant, while the fraction of the Moon that is lit by the Sun, viewed from Earth, is a dimensionless yet time-dependent quantity.

I am afraid I'm not interested in corresponding about or working on a future publication.  --Lambiam 14:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok I shall continue on my own,

for your information: with "E=hv" , "the energy in one cycle of the emission" contrary to what Graeme writes, as to have the energy of a cycle we divide the energy by the frequency, the energy of a cycle will always be equal to the value of "h", whatever the frequency. Malypaet (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you are confusing Planck's law with the Planck relation. The only thing they have in common is that both were invented by Max Planck to resolve the so-called ultraviolet catastrophe – a tremendous discrepancy between theory and actual observation. The formula of Planck's law was derived empirically to fit the actual observations. Planck came up with the formula now known as the Planck relation as a theoretical explanation of the observed law. Later the Planck relation was also experimentally confirmed. Other than this historical relationship, they are totally different and unrelated things.

Concept	What is measured	Its source	Formula
Planck's law	spectral density of electromagnetic radiation	emitted by a black body	$B_{\nu }(T)=2h\nu ^{3}c^{{-}2}(e^{\frac {h\nu }{k_{\mathrm {B} }T}}-1)^{{-}1}$
Planck relation	energy	carried by a single photon	$E=h\nu$

--Lambiam 19:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

clarity needed in statement

if you could clarify your response statement made previously. here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#gaps_in_government_legislation/policy Grotesquetruth (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Help

Please, can you search if Friedrich Fromm, Günther Korten, Heinz Brandt, Rudolf Schmundt, Walther Buhle, Ernst John von Freyend, Henning von Thadden, Heinz Buchholz, and Leonhard von Moellendorff were devoted nazists (inscripted to the Nazi Party) or even them in contrary to the Nazi regime? In Operation Valkirye (film 2008), who were the captain and the sergeant of Reich centraline during that operation? Are there information about Sergeant Kolbe's life, the guard of Wolf's Liar in July 1944? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.136.124 (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

doubt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#government,_market,_balance? would like to have your view. Grotesquetruth (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

whether you'd be able to give your view of understanding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grotesquetruth (talk • contribs) 10:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

your view?

What is the most effective way to promote social justice in a democracy governed by the rule of law? can we say that market-based approaches, such as economic development and job creation, are the most effective way to lift people out of poverty and promote social mobility? Or that more direct interventions, such as redistributive policies or social welfare programs, are necessary to address deep-seated inequalities and ensure that all members of society have a fair chance to succeed? how can we strike a balance between market-based and more direct interventions in order to achieve the greatest benefit for all members of society? Grotesquetruth (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The question is too broad to have a reasonably comprehensive answer. Which ways one may hope to be effective depends critically on the social, political and economical situation. What works in situation A will not work in situation B. And who precisely is doing the intervention, what authority do they have to intervene, and what instruments do they have at their disposal? Is there even a social consensus that more social justice is desirable, or are there powerful opposing actors? All these aspects must be taken into consideration. Economic development and job creation are not by themselves market-based approaches, but potential policy objectives that (depending on the situation and the methods employed, but also on uncertain factors), if attained, may or may not help to promote social justice. Pure market-based approaches as advocated by laissez-faire liberals are unlikely to further social justice, because the external costs are always borne the most by the least privileged – that's the way the cookie crumbles.  --Lambiam 16:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I took the question "What is the most effective way to promote social justice in a democracy governed by the rule of law?" and posed it to ChatGPT. Here is the answer:

“ Promoting social justice in a democracy governed by the rule of law involves a number of strategies and approaches. Some of the most effective ways to promote social justice in a democracy include:

1. Engaging in grassroots organizing and advocacy: This involves working with communities and organizations to raise awareness about social justice issues and to advocate for policy changes and reforms at the local, state, and national levels.
2. Participating in the electoral process: Voting in elections and supporting candidates who are committed to social justice issues can help bring about change and progress on these issues.
3. Using the media to raise awareness: The media can be an effective tool for raising awareness about social justice issues and for putting pressure on policymakers to take action.
4. Working with allies and building coalitions: Building partnerships and alliances with other organizations and groups that share your goals can help amplify your voice and increase your impact.
5. Engaging in civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action: In some cases, civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action can be effective ways to draw attention to social justice issues and to push for change.

It is important to remember that promoting social justice requires a sustained and long-term effort, and that progress may be slow and incremental. It is also important to work within the framework of the rule of law and to respect the rights and freedoms of others.

”

Obviously, this answer assumes that the person asking the question is an activist asking for advice what they themselves can do.  --Lambiam 16:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics

I don't think this edit accomplished what you intended to accomplish. General Ization ^Talk 00:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for all your help and guidance on the ref desk over the years. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Another barnstar for your dedication to the mathematics reference desk over many years! cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 07:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle

2008 source: [1], the "Impacting the world..." article. And one more 2009:[2]. Per "This is a list of some well-documented cases where Wikipedia has been the source." IMO that's not clear enough here. It seems likely Will Smith was the source, this is not a Julius Pringles situation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It is indeed not clear that later occurrences were copied from Wikipedia, so I've removed the "incident". Those that include the words "Light up the darkness" were definitely not copied from Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 09:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Your version of the quote deserves wider use, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you check this out one more time?

Hey, could you please check out the Outer Manchuria discussion at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Outer_Manchuria one more time for any further input you might have? It's absolutely wild. I don't think anyone can really trust one or two users; I need to see if anyone else can come to the same conclusions. Unless you or Double sharp reach out and contact me, I plan to avoid the Outer Manchuria topic on Wikipedia for a while and just research related topics on Wiktionary; I'm afraid that I couldn't hold my own against some of these editors, who may have deep beliefs and opinions. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Advice to Hosh1313

Greetings. Your advice was, of course, absolutely correct. However, I sometimes indulge editors with radical ideas. It allows me to gently explain what Wikipedia is and some policies, while letting them have their say. Sometimes, I can turn them around and they become contributors. Usually, they just go quiet. Sometimes, I just have to abandon the effort. As far as I know, it has never reached the point where an admin had to take action. Cheers. Constant314 (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Our conversation was archived right after your reply

Last night, i noticed that you had written a reply, and i started answering, but was held up before i could save it. My answer was partly expressing thanks for your change of tone, and partly on the original topic. When i went back to the computer this morning and wanted to save it, my browser instead showed the edit page for another section, as if i had just selected the edit button, with all of the text i had entered gone. Then i realized that the conversation was archived by a bot. This is strange on two sides: For one, a bot shouldn't archive an ongoing conversation, and then my browser seems to have dealt with that badly. (I hadn't experienced this before; it seems a bug introduced by the new feature that on entering a reply you continuously see a real time preview.) But it may be just as well. Should we do something about it or just let it be? ◅ Sebastian 04:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The archiving policy at the Reference desk is that (non-empty) pages are archived a fixed number of days after they're started, irrespective of recent activity. I too have noticed that the Reply feature is somewhat iffy; while I like the real-time preview, it does not always display correctly and one always has to perform a check after committing. I'm not sure, though, that what you witnessed was related to the new feature; I think I have seen similar behaviour before it was introduced.  --Lambiam 09:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, that explains at least one of the observations. It didn't occur to me that anyone would set up such an unusual archiving policy, so i posted a question about it at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Archiving policy. ◅ Sebastian 18:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

[In]dependent samples, paired samples

 Note: just in case you're interested. Hildeoc (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HP7part1+2poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:HP7part1+2poster.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) 17:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my dicerolling probability question on the Mathematics Reference Desk! --Aabicus (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

charitable trusts under Indian GST framework.

I'd like to have your view over whether charitable trusts constitute a business specifically under GST framework in India. Grotesquetruth (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Canadian First Nations

Thank You for the link to the article on Kevin Annett. I guess it makes no sense to feature him on Wikipedia and also would be counterproductive to the interests of First Nation people, I guess.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions

Hello Lambiam,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages.

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

-- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Musicological thanks

		Scholarly Barnstar
		Thanks, Lambian, for sharing your expert knowledge and managing to convey complex, technical information for a layman (me). Absolutely fantastic, cheers! Serial 10:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Small request

If I could bother you for a moment, I'm copyediting Square pyramid for the November GOCE drive, and I wanted to make sure I didn't introduce any errors to the small technical properties section. If you feel like it, a brisk double-check would put my mind at ease. :)

I couldn't help myself but engaged in somewhat more extensive copy editing.  --Lambiam 18:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Texas faithless electors

Thank you for the modification. Maybe I would have also mentioned Mike Pence in the vote for unfaithful voter Bill Greene for Vice President, but if you decided otherwise that's okay. Andreoto (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Did you see this edit?  --Lambiam 15:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I had missed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreoto (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The Guidance Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For locating insightful and valuable source material, seen here Schyler (exquirito veritatem bonumque) 16:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Thanks for the help on the reference desk helping with my question about Cochrane. There was a discussion several years ago about removing the reference desk and I was adamantly against it because while I don't use it much when I do use it, it is times like this where my normal sources don't provide an answer and it can really be a great help. I noticed you answered some of my previous questions there as well. Thanks for all your help, it is people like you who make Wikipedia something I point to as an example of how the Internet can live up to the idealistic goals that the original designers of it had in mind and not just be a home for flame wars on social media. Have a great holiday!!! MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)