Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::I guess the point is, lots of time, or novel arguments can deter a claim of forumshopping. If you are putting the same debate into multiple places and doing so very very sequentially, it can appear to be forumshopping. There is an escalation process on Misplaced Pages, and sometimes this can be also construed as forumshopping. The thing is, I don't want to be discouraging, not encouraging with these suggestions. The debate on the X-Ray stuff is something that seems highly technical and for whatever reason, your fellow editors initially didn't agree with the way that you wanted to include the material. You could adjust the presentation of it, give it a different tone, attempt to start an article that covers it exclusively, find an article where it is a better fit, you could sum up what you want to add and ask other editors for help to determine how it might be rephrased or retooled to be bit for inclusion in some article, etc. Often if you simply come in with a very humble request that you believe something is important and you would like help, there will be some people who will be helpful. Of course there are some negative people too, but that's life. The other alternative, for now, is simply let it go, work on some other stuff for a while, and revisit this later. Fresh minds, fresh editors after a few months, and you might see a different outcome. But there are plenty of alternatives here, just try your best to avoid doing things that seem to violate policy. -- ] (]) 16:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
::::I guess the point is, lots of time, or novel arguments can deter a claim of forumshopping. If you are putting the same debate into multiple places and doing so very very sequentially, it can appear to be forumshopping. There is an escalation process on Misplaced Pages, and sometimes this can be also construed as forumshopping. The thing is, I don't want to be discouraging, not encouraging with these suggestions. The debate on the X-Ray stuff is something that seems highly technical and for whatever reason, your fellow editors initially didn't agree with the way that you wanted to include the material. You could adjust the presentation of it, give it a different tone, attempt to start an article that covers it exclusively, find an article where it is a better fit, you could sum up what you want to add and ask other editors for help to determine how it might be rephrased or retooled to be bit for inclusion in some article, etc. Often if you simply come in with a very humble request that you believe something is important and you would like help, there will be some people who will be helpful. Of course there are some negative people too, but that's life. The other alternative, for now, is simply let it go, work on some other stuff for a while, and revisit this later. Fresh minds, fresh editors after a few months, and you might see a different outcome. But there are plenty of alternatives here, just try your best to avoid doing things that seem to violate policy. -- ] (]) 16:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Now Guy, and IRWolfie came to my talk page to accuse me of edit warring, and Guy threatened to block me, see . What really happened was that some editor added something, and Yobol reverted it with a wrong explanation, I reverted and wrote that the explanation is wrong for that revert, Yobol reverted again and discussed at the talk page, I discussed, doc james discussed, some other editor discussed, it seemed like there was a consensus for the edit with minor changes, and then the original other editor rewrote his edit and added it to the article. Is that edit warring? --] (]) 18:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::Now Guy, and IRWolfie came to my talk page to accuse me of edit warring, and Guy threatened to block me, see . What really happened was that some editor added something, and Yobol reverted it with a wrong explanation, I reverted and wrote that the explanation is wrong for that revert, Yobol reverted again and discussed at the talk page, I discussed, doc james discussed, some other editor discussed, it seemed like there was a consensus for the edit with minor changes, and then the original other editor rewrote his edit and added it to the article. Is that edit warring? --] (]) 18:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::After reading that, it feels as if Guy might have been reflexively commenting. I would just explain pretty much what you just said, and that the other editors and yourself came to a fine conclusion, and leave it at that. -- ] (]) 18:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I admit that I did not double check to confirm that the edit warring actually occurred (No doubt Nenpog is going to shout GOTCHA!!! and quote part of this sentence out of context as he has done so many times before). All I know is this; I saw a warning about edit warring. I then saw Nenpog giving a completely bogus answer that showed zero understanding of ], then I saw him rejecting all efforts to correct him (I don't think Nenpog has ''ever'' changed his mind on ''anything'' based upon other editors trying to explain where his thinking went wrong - he appears to be completely ineducable) So I told him what would happen if he edit warred again.
:::::::The foolowing is pure opinion; take it for what it is worth. Avanu, you might want to look at the bigger picture here. You have had your share of conflicts on Misplaced Pages, but as I see it, they are always the sort of things where even if I disagree, I can see that you have a valid point and have put some thinking behind your position. Nenpog isn't like you. Where you give intelligent responses and clearly have a good-faith desire to do what is best for the encyclopedia, Nenpog only works toward demonizing CT scans and attacking anyone who gets in his way. By giving him any sort of encouragement, IMO you are inadvertently making the problem worse. You also see problems in the responses to Nenpog, which is a good thing (I have paid attention to your criticism of me, and some of it hit home). Alas, while that criticism is good for folks like me, it is bad for Nenpog. It only encourages more misbehavior. Please consider taking a bit of a firmer stance against Nenpog being disruptive and please consider correcting those who you see reacting badly to Nenpog being disruptive on their user talk pages rather than in discussions with Nenpog. --] (]) 19:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::That's actually occured to me.... how to stay encouraging in one way, without contributing to making things worse. I think it is a very valid point, which is why I think I'll go ahead and stop contributing quite so much to this thread. I want every editor to feel that they are able to do what they feel is right, but unfortunately what each of us thinks is right at a certain time might not always be helpful. @Nenpog, if you're reading this, keep in mind that things aren't just a one-way street. Your actions get a response, and if you keep getting a certain response that you don't like, try something different, or try just avoiding the thing entirely. Good luck. -- ] (]) 19:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Note that edit warring did take place, reverting the revert of bold content is edit warring, this should instead be taken to the talk page. Nenpog also encouraged another editor to continue the edit war (see my comment on his page). ] (]) 11:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::It was taken to the talk page. At the time of the reverts, there was a standing discussion about the same topic with the same editor, which that editor has completely ignored for a long time. --] (]) 12:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Lest anyone misunderstand, the reason that I did not bother to check is because I have never -- not once -- seen IRWolfie post anything that is not true, and I have seen Nenpog be deceitful on multiple occasions. Thus, when Nenpog added his latest false accusation to his long list of previous false accusations, I ignored it. W.O.M.B.A.T: Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time. --] (]) 16:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
== What is a point... this is ==
] <-- -- ] (]) 20:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks for the reference to the point. I read it. It is about applying rules you hate on other editors, in order to make them hate them too. I don't think I did that.
:Additionally the example I gave there is not far fetched/made up, it is a real story although the names and places has been alter to protect the identities of the characters, and in order to address the problem in a generic form. --] (]) 20:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
::"As a rule, one engaging in "POINTY" behavior is making edits which he or she <b>does not really agree with</b>, for the purpose of discrediting a policy or interpretation thereof."<sub>]</sub> - and I didn't make an edit that I don't agree with. --] (]) 20:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.
First, since I left you a message about this on your talk page, it is poor form to slap a template on my page in response.
Second, the criteria for inclusion is not verifiability, verifiability is merely the baseline threshold for something if you want to include it. In other words, if you can't verify it, don't include it. "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"
You mention me using the word 'trivia' above, but leave off the majority of my statement which was "please show relevance to overall article or to what company does". Misplaced Pages:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information,Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and WP:DUE within that. Just because you have a personal interest in the additional information does not make it due or to quote the NPOV policy, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' about those specific views."
I've looked at your contributions and you have a habit of not only adding something into one article, but attempting to insert the same thing into a bunch of articles to try and push an overall viewpoint. As I said in the discussion I left on your Talk page, you need to be trying to avoid biased editing. If you disagree with another editor's good faith changes, take it to the Talk page, but labeling it as vandalism is not the appropriate response. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
Hi Avanu. I got impressed for the polemic produced in that debate, and seemed very, very unlikely the deletion of the article. In cases like that is it not obvious that the article should be kept? How is possible one admin taking that final decision? It is clear that a neutral committee should decide that. It seems pretty much a contestable act over there, therefore a clear case to the Deletion review. My main problem is finding time to all this, however I will be there if you or some else do the request. By the way, thanks for your comprehensive vision, you really understood the reality and knew how to deal correctly with the facts and editors. Excalibursword (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes it just goes that way. I don't think the Delete people made a good case, but it won for today. I suppose it could be appealed, but I think it will just be a repeat of the same. -- Avanu (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
As said before. Barnstars are interesting, but a more useful tool to you. Sometimes the fight is more important than the victory or defeat.Excalibursword (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
All right, good. I personally don't think you need to be recalled, although I'm not 100% pleased with your actions, but I wanted to make sure he knew the option existed. - Jorgath (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, I have no problem with an administrator using the 'tools', as long as they are polite and considerate when they use them. I found Sarek's curt reply the other day when he posted that link to be a little disingenuous considering how unbelievably specific and complex the process is at that link. I am certain that there is a lot that Sarek does which is helpful and constructive toward the encyclopedia, but unfortunately I see rash or abrupt actions from him far too frequently. I know that he knows about this, because its been said to him by various editors time and again, and I hope he sincerely wants to improve. Personally, my ire is raised more than anything else by a person in authority behaving in a less than considerate way when the other person can't do anything to protect themselves. While Sceptre isn't blameless in this recent thing, Sarek should have taken some steps to make sure he communicated things clearly to Sceptre before just resorting to punitive actions. -- Avanu (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Something like a recurring yearly 'continuing education' for Admins would be great if it could be shown that it helps. Dealing with burnout, how to handle conflict, easier methods for complicated stuff, whatever is needed. As for being an admin for perpetuity, I'm conflicted on this. I read Jimmy Wales rationale on this a while back. He said 'why remove a good admin if they've done nothing wrong?' And if an admin is doing well, that rationale seems reasonable. After all, they are just volunteers. However, if the expectation is that an admin will be time-limited, then it seems like they have no expectation of anything else and will just serve out their term and move back into regular joe status without a problem. The other side of the problem is the massively hideous Request for Adminship and the Admin Review processes. Its simply a horrible shoutfest of all the negative things a person might have ever done. Despite my occasional disdain for Sarek, I would hope that the day he retires, we congratulate him and thank him for his service. This is something that every volunteer deserves. So the current candidacy and review is a mess, and these admins serve for life. All in all, I think some form of time-limited service would simply make this all less problematic and a big emphasis on civil treatment during those processes would help.
As I write this, I also realize that I was pretty harsh with Sarek yesterday in my comment (at AN/I). I'll stand by the substance in my critique, but I feel that I was wrong in the way I presented it. My apologies to Sarek for the tone and language. -- Avanu (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Accepted, of course. Had you left it at "He simply amps up the conflict instead of working to resolve problems. Sceptre didn't need to be kicked while down" in the first place, I wouldn't have blinked twice.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)15:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
And about the "complex procedure", it comes down to "if 6 editors in good standing want me to stand for recall, we run an RFC/U and I abide by what the clerk says the results are." Most of the complexities can be ignored. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)15:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
something similar
You recently had interactions with Obotlig at an AFD where you stated "Calling people trolls for asking for a reasonable argument isn't civil." I have a similar incident with the same editor calling me a troll, which I have brought to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance#Obotlig. Please share your opinions there. Dream Focus16:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
I'm aware I take a harder, bright-line approach to COI editing than some other admins do; and it's not a bad idea to keep me reminded that my stance is a smidgen controversial in some circles. --Orange Mike | Talk12:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I jumped up and yelled 'fire' a little too quickly as well. I think I learned to think just a little harder after this and I appreciate that you're being as on top of things as you are. You take care of a lot and I appreciate your effort. Wish you well. -- Avanu (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
No one did. Your comments were not on topic, and were not relevant to a standards-based discussion on the topic as given. Collapsing or Hatting off-topic material in a discussion is perfectly in line with Talk Page guidelines. -- Avanu (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, IRWolfie closed the discussion with a decision of no incivility on the part of Guy. I think he is wrong.
Latest diff from guy and recent comments at WQA indicate that he is going to continue to follow me, and to bias reply against me.
BTW, I don't think that I was forum shopping. I talked at talk x-ray computed tomography, we had a content dispute, we went to the DRN, I have reasons to suspect COI (not just because people didn't agree with me), and I asked people to declare it in accordance with the COI guideline, I was told to go to the COIN to discuss COIs, I did, the discussion was closed by a volunteer, afterwards an other volunteer at the talk page wrote, that it was closed because it was only a discussion and not an accusation. It was only a discussion, since I didn't want to make accusations because the COI guideline instruct to discuss first and try to reach agreement. Guy exploded at the COIN thinking that I am accusing him, but I didn't accuse anyone there. Then I asked at the COIN talk page why the discussion was closed, since the header said that the COIN is for advice as well. Guy added his disclaimer there, and IRWolfie- collapsed the discussion, before I received an answer from a volunteer at the COIN. At the MEDRS talk page there was a discussion about the medrs rules being too complex, and serving commercial interests, and I vented there that I agreed, and mentioned my case as proof that something is wrong with the rules. At the NPOV there was a post before me from someone who criticized the undue weight policy, and also the interpretation of due weight at that thread seemed different than what I saw before, and I joined the discussion in order to clarify my own understanding, and I found out that I didn't understand before, because I took due weight literally, and because other editors use that term in a way that suggest a different meaning than what it really is. At the NOR I have started long ago a generic discussion about if simple logic is a synth, I didn't mention my case, but someone else knew about it and bothered to point it out to everyone. I wanted to discuss if simple logic is a synth generically but the other participants refused.
WP:FORUMSHOP state that forum shop is raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators. From these four places only the DRN is a noticeboard/administrator. So there wasn't going to multiple noticeboards/administrators. I hope that going to the DRN for a content dispute is not considered forum shopping. The other places were talk pages, and in any case in any of the four locations different issues were discussed - determining the reason the COIN didn't give advice about possible COIs - expressing opinion about the rules of MEDRS - how is due weight determined - is simple logic a SYNTH. I hope it is clear that these are not essentially the same issue, these questions may have arise due to the same issue, but they are not the same issue.
In my opinion, even if someone is forumshoping, the issue should be first determined at some talk page maybe a WQA, and in any case following around and inserting off topic messages to discussions is not civil. For some reasons a few other participants seems to think that Guy's actions were not uncivil. --Nenpog (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that you take a breather from that article that is causing Guy Macon to label you as a forum shopper. Perhaps a week, perhaps longer. The reason I suggest this rather than continue bumping against Guy in one forum after another, is that if you give this time to cool off, you can think about the approach, and if you revisit this after some time has passed, it will be less likely that Guy will be able to claim forum shopping on your part. You might also see that there is a different approach to accomplishing some of what you might want or you might gain a different perspective on what your fellow editors are saying. If you have patience with this, and if Guy continues to follow you even after that patience has been demonstrated, I think you would have a stronger reason to claim that his actions are unwarranted. However, it may also give him time to reconsider his approach to dealing with you if he sees your patience and willingness to work through process, even if it means it takes longer. -- Avanu (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I will consider it. I am not sure if I understand why taking a time off would help to convenience anyone that I am not forumshopping. --Nenpog (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
He had several admins and an arbcom member telling him to drop the COI issue, I think that's enough to say maybe it's time to work on something else. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Nenpog has already taken the same dispute to DRN, NOR, NPOV, COIN, COIN talk, 2 x IRC etc (he raised essentially the same issue in every place). the editor has also been blocked previously for edit warring in this topic: . IRWolfie- (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
This is just false. I have already wrote about DRN, NOR talk, NPOV talk, COIN, and COIN talk above. IRC doesn't count for anything IMHO. I wonder if talk pages count, as the WP:FORUMSHOPPING is about noticeboards not talk pages, and in any case different matters were discussed in each. --Nenpog (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess the point is, lots of time, or novel arguments can deter a claim of forumshopping. If you are putting the same debate into multiple places and doing so very very sequentially, it can appear to be forumshopping. There is an escalation process on Misplaced Pages, and sometimes this can be also construed as forumshopping. The thing is, I don't want to be discouraging, not encouraging with these suggestions. The debate on the X-Ray stuff is something that seems highly technical and for whatever reason, your fellow editors initially didn't agree with the way that you wanted to include the material. You could adjust the presentation of it, give it a different tone, attempt to start an article that covers it exclusively, find an article where it is a better fit, you could sum up what you want to add and ask other editors for help to determine how it might be rephrased or retooled to be bit for inclusion in some article, etc. Often if you simply come in with a very humble request that you believe something is important and you would like help, there will be some people who will be helpful. Of course there are some negative people too, but that's life. The other alternative, for now, is simply let it go, work on some other stuff for a while, and revisit this later. Fresh minds, fresh editors after a few months, and you might see a different outcome. But there are plenty of alternatives here, just try your best to avoid doing things that seem to violate policy. -- Avanu (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Now Guy, and IRWolfie came to my talk page to accuse me of edit warring, and Guy threatened to block me, see diff. What really happened was that some editor added something, and Yobol reverted it with a wrong explanation, I reverted and wrote that the explanation is wrong for that revert, Yobol reverted again and discussed at the talk page, I discussed, doc james discussed, some other editor discussed, it seemed like there was a consensus for the edit with minor changes, and then the original other editor rewrote his edit and added it to the article. Is that edit warring? --Nenpog (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
After reading that, it feels as if Guy might have been reflexively commenting. I would just explain pretty much what you just said, and that the other editors and yourself came to a fine conclusion, and leave it at that. -- Avanu (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I admit that I did not double check to confirm that the edit warring actually occurred (No doubt Nenpog is going to shout GOTCHA!!! and quote part of this sentence out of context as he has done so many times before). All I know is this; I saw a warning about edit warring. I then saw Nenpog giving a completely bogus answer that showed zero understanding of WP:BRD, then I saw him rejecting all efforts to correct him (I don't think Nenpog has ever changed his mind on anything based upon other editors trying to explain where his thinking went wrong - he appears to be completely ineducable) So I told him what would happen if he edit warred again.
The foolowing is pure opinion; take it for what it is worth. Avanu, you might want to look at the bigger picture here. You have had your share of conflicts on Misplaced Pages, but as I see it, they are always the sort of things where even if I disagree, I can see that you have a valid point and have put some thinking behind your position. Nenpog isn't like you. Where you give intelligent responses and clearly have a good-faith desire to do what is best for the encyclopedia, Nenpog only works toward demonizing CT scans and attacking anyone who gets in his way. By giving him any sort of encouragement, IMO you are inadvertently making the problem worse. You also see problems in the responses to Nenpog, which is a good thing (I have paid attention to your criticism of me, and some of it hit home). Alas, while that criticism is good for folks like me, it is bad for Nenpog. It only encourages more misbehavior. Please consider taking a bit of a firmer stance against Nenpog being disruptive and please consider correcting those who you see reacting badly to Nenpog being disruptive on their user talk pages rather than in discussions with Nenpog. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
That's actually occured to me.... how to stay encouraging in one way, without contributing to making things worse. I think it is a very valid point, which is why I think I'll go ahead and stop contributing quite so much to this thread. I want every editor to feel that they are able to do what they feel is right, but unfortunately what each of us thinks is right at a certain time might not always be helpful. @Nenpog, if you're reading this, keep in mind that things aren't just a one-way street. Your actions get a response, and if you keep getting a certain response that you don't like, try something different, or try just avoiding the thing entirely. Good luck. -- Avanu (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that edit warring did take place, reverting the revert of bold content is edit warring, this should instead be taken to the talk page. Nenpog also encouraged another editor to continue the edit war (see my comment on his page). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
It was taken to the talk page. At the time of the reverts, there was a standing discussion about the same topic with the same editor, which that editor has completely ignored for a long time. --Nenpog (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Lest anyone misunderstand, the reason that I did not bother to check is because I have never -- not once -- seen IRWolfie post anything that is not true, and I have seen Nenpog be deceitful on multiple occasions. Thus, when Nenpog added his latest false accusation to his long list of previous false accusations, I ignored it. W.O.M.B.A.T: Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference to the point. I read it. It is about applying rules you hate on other editors, in order to make them hate them too. I don't think I did that.
Additionally the example I gave there is not far fetched/made up, it is a real story although the names and places has been alter to protect the identities of the characters, and in order to address the problem in a generic form. --Nenpog (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
"As a rule, one engaging in "POINTY" behavior is making edits which he or she does not really agree with, for the purpose of discrediting a policy or interpretation thereof."WP:NOTPOINTY - and I didn't make an edit that I don't agree with. --Nenpog (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did at General Mills, you may be blocked from editing. The criteria for inclusion on wikipedia is WP:Verifiability. You left an edit summary aying its "trivia". May i ask which wikieidia polciy disallows trivia? Pass a Method talk 15:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
to High 
.
2.jpg)
