Misplaced Pages

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Beast Wars Neo characters may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{{unreferenced|list|date=October 2010}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John C. Stennis Space Center may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Development Authority]] ({{US$|500,000}} using funding from state bond issues), and NASA (up to {{US$|600,000}}. {{asof|2013|10}}, the SpaceX funding commitment to the methane modification

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed N2e (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Launch articles

I've drawn up a couple of prototype launch articles to see if they are feasible. They're not finished yet, but could you possibly have a quick look at User:WDGraham/LA and User:WDGraham/LA2 and let me know what you think. --W. D. Graham 21:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I like what you've done there. Good to see the progress on the basic infrastructure that will help facilitate any launch articles that get started following changes to WP:LAUNCHES have some degree of standardization.

Here are some general comments:

• is there a limit in the templates for no. of stages? or can you just keep using "| stage_n = ..."?
• I'm not clear on how "Target orbit" would work in the templates for a wide variety of launches. I can see a singular "orbit" working when all (or the only) sats go to the same orbital regime, but it seems quite probably we'll be experiencing LEO dropoffs where the upper stage kicks to MEO or HEO or GTO.
• I very much like how you are thinking about derelicts and debris from the get go. In general, I definitely think we ought to consider in advance how derelict upper stages that remain in orbit for more than a few days ought to be handled in these articles. Perhaps, these launch articles could be the place in WP article space where derelict stages are explicitly to be handled; perhaps not, in which case long-term derelicts would probably warrant a small satellite article of their own. From your LA draft, I'm thinking your are thinking the former; is that correct?
• The LA approach for showing multiple "artificial satellites" per launch, including derelicts and debris, in a table rather than in an infobox template, seems to me to be the most flexible approach. Moreover, the LA approach seems best able to handle multiple orbital derelicts like the LADEE mission, which left both the 4th and 5th stages in long-term orbits, I believe.
• If we do handle derelict upper stages and orbital debris in these articles, are you thinking that AstRoBOt could be modified to handle the orbital element updates?
• In the LA "Payloads" table, I think it was a real good idea for you to add the satellite bus column!
• If satellite orbital lifetimes are typically published as part of launch documentation (I imagine they are required for launches licensed from the US, maybe ESA; not sure about Russia), and can be publically obtained, then maybe a column for planned sat orbital lifetime might be useful.
• In the LA "Objects catalogued" table, I'm curious as to how much of such data might be able to be filled in by a bot? For example, I like the colored background scheme for presentation to the reader, but am wondering how easy it will be for articles to not get outdated if only manual updates are used to set/tweak the background colors, etc. Are the orbital object databases good enough/consistent enough that we might be able to pick up "type" from the database, along with "name" and the orb elements given either SATCAT or COSPAR ID?
• I'm not very familiar with the WP articles that track all launches, but I know you and a few other editors do a great job in keeping them up. How much of this sort of summary of each launch might be able to be coordinated with, or bot fed from, the work that already goes into populating those summary articles with proper data?
• It seems that the "Target orbit" info in the infobox of LA2, or at least the full six-element detail of it, will inevitably get confused with the info in the "Objects cataloged" table. In cases where they overlap, the data will likely be unevenly kept current, and therefore, would be better not to have two locations in the article for such data. So maybe lose the target orbit from the infobox?

Those are some initial thoughts. Let me know if you were looking for something else, or of course, if you want me to look more closely at some other areas, or other questions you have.

BTW, if you would rather have this dialogue somewhere other than my Talk page, feel free to move the entire discussion elsewhere and give me a pointer. N2e (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to respond to all of your questions:

• Stage lists: I've put six stage fields in for now, which covers every rocket I can think of, however it can be increased indefinitely should it become necessary to have more. In addition to these six fields, there is a separate "upper stage" field to handle launches were the upper stage is a distinct unit but still considered part of the rocket (e.g. Proton-M/Briz-M, Titan/IUS, etc) and "additional stages" to cover stages that are considered part of the payload.
• Target Orbits: It wasn't needed in either of the examples, but the last field in the target orbit section is called "For". In cases where the rocket deployed satellites into different orbits, this can be used to denote which payload the data applies to - my recommendation is that it should be the last primary payload. In more complex cases, the section can be omitted entirely and mentioned in the body of the article instead. Although the section can display many different parameters, it is unlikely that they would all be present at once - different companies present their target orbits in different ways so I put in enough fields to handle all the regular combinations, but it is rare, for example to see SMA/eccentricity and apses in the same press kit - while it is easy to convert between the two, the idea I had with that section is that it would only show the data that was announced before launch.
• Upper stages: I think it would be difficult to assert notability for articles about individual upper stages, and short of including a large amount of launch information or a long table of orbit data over time, it would be hard for these to ever get beyond very short stubs. Particularly interesting cases might warrant a paragraph in the launch article, and there's plenty of space to accommodate this. Otherwise the table gives coverage.
• Automation: I'm looking into how AstRoBot would best be modified to accommodate updating the orbital elements in the table, but I fully intend to provide this functionality in an on-demand manner similar to how the bot currently updates infoboxes. There will be a global opt in for the whole table, with individual opt-in/out fields in the rows (e.g. a launch which placed one object beyond Earth orbit could be fully-opt-in with that one object opt-out, while a launch which dropped one satellite off in LEO en route to escape could just have that payload opt in. With regards other data besides the orbits, the colours shouldn't need to be changed too much - I wasn't planning to recolour payloads as debris once they become inactive. It might be useful to have a bot add new debris when it is discovered, however there is no way to query the HA and N2YO databases directly so short of trawling the entire sites page-by-page at the start of a run, I can't think of a way to find new data, and I can't really support over 75,000 pagegrabs before every run.
• Orbital lifetime: I'm not sure where this information would be available - and for many satellites the value is more or less infinite - once satellites are high enough drag is so low that they will more or less never decay. To avoid a lot of empty cells it might be better to mention this in remarks rather than as a separate field.
• List coordination: I think having some coordination between updating a) list, b) launch and c) payload articles would be useful - the problem with a bot is that there is no way for it to know which version is correct. There are plenty of sourcing problems on the timeline of spaceflight articles as well, which shouldn't really be allowed to propagate to the launch ones.

There are still a few things that need to be ironed out, including:

• naming the articles
• what level of detail is required
• how much of this is applicable to Space Shuttle articles
• handling launches with thousands of debris objects (e.g. CZ-4B Y2, Kosmos-3M 47135-601, Pegasus F5, etc)
• the best way to provide links to launch articles in payload articles, launch lists for that type of rocket and the timeline of spaceflight

--W. D. Graham 11:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the substantive response. I appreciate it. Looks to me like you are really pretty comprehensively thinking about this proposed change, and doing great groundwork leading up to it. I have just two more comments.

• On Upper Stages, I agree with you. If a new WP:LAUNCHES that supports having launch articles under some circumstances, I believe the best place for the derelicts to be recorded on the English Misplaced Pages is in the objects table you have proposed for these launch articles. Having said that, I do believe that a long-lived derelict rocket body, orbiting in the near-Earth orbital area for years/decades/centuries is likely sufficiently notable not for a separate article but for making the launch article notable that would, ostensibly, include the derelict orbital elements, if they are known and can be cited.

• On Target Orbits in the infobox. I'm ambivalent. Given the complexity of the various missions with diverse multi-satellite (primary and secondary) payloads, I'm thinking we may just be making a future cleanup mess by attempting to include the "target" orbits in the infobox. If I'm right, then would be better to allow the target orbit(s) to be discussed in article prose, and keep the launch infobox cleaner.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I would consider long-lived upper stages notable, but I think it would be difficult to convince the rest of the editor community of this, particularly those not involved in the field of spaceflight. I can see your point on target orbits, I'm not sure what the best course of action would be - when we open a wider discussion on launch articles, this is probably something which should be addressed. --W. D. Graham 16:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, a worthy topic of further discussion. And at some point, there will be additional support for such things simply because Earthbound environmentally-aware folks will add their voices to the idea that these "costs" on the broader community from space junk should be both public and more easily transparent. Negative externalities only go unnoticed in the early decades of any large scale pollution. They will not stay "under the radar" forever. In the meantime, I'm quite happy to grow Misplaced Pages organically; some notable rocket bodies with sources etc. will be annotated in the growing/evolving Misplaced Pages, while others won't. Eventually, more will be. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary

I think you should read Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary especially when dealing with good faith efforts. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Backlog template made by User:TheJJJunk

Backlog status (Purge)

Category	Current status
Pages with incorrect ref formatting	Not done
Pages with missing references list	Done
Pages with broken reference names	Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",".

Best wishes --Frze 04:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

New REFBot

There is a suggestion on Misplaced Pages:Bot requests for a new REFBot working as DPL bot and BracketBot do. I beg politely for consideration. Please leave a comment if you wish. Thanks a lot in anticipation. -- Frze (talk · contribs) 04:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

W. D. Graham 20:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is a Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your tireless work in editing articles related to spaceflight and positive contributions you have made to Misplaced Pages. I have appreciated your contributions to articles we have collaborated upon in the past, and I hope that you will continue to perform these kind of heroic tasks into the future. Don't let current events drag you down, as you have made Misplaced Pages a better place by simply doing what you are doing right now. Robert Horning (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't post in the middle of my text

Looking at this post of yours, you've inserted it in the middle of my text. It would be nice if you could find somewhere else to put it - after mine, for example - or just remove it completely, as it apperantly serves no useful purpose other than commentary. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you've got that wrong. I posted at the end of an article section when I left that comment. Just looked, it is still at the end of an article section. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No. my post commenced with the first sentence: This is truly a Big Bang moment. and ended with my signature. You plonked your post between those two points, right after the colon. What did you think the colon was for? --Pete (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You know, I went and looked at that diff a second time. I absolutely did post my comment at the end of an existing section; and my comment was about the material in the section that preceded it. So I don't really get what you're saying, and am beginning to think that there may be more than a little bit of trolling in your behavior. But since I don't have a solid case on that, I'm not starting an administrator review of your behavior at this time; I will continue to merely treat you with civility, while still occasionally challenging your disruptive editing and repeated refusal to follow the standard WP:BRD process on article content discussions (other readers: see Talk:Lynx (spacecraft) for a great deal of this Skyring/Pete behavior, all exposed in plain view).

I'm wishing you well here, but do think that a good dose of chill would be good for you, and for the encyclopedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I started a subsection within my comment, in response to your request. You're forgiven. As to your excellent advice, I find that if I give advice, it's generally advice I should follow myself. How do you see this - is advice something that others should follow, or is it something that everyone should follow? --Pete (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

I replied to your question about the proposed essay. By the way, there's also been another round of comments on the Atlas talk page. W. D. Graham 20:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Lynx

N2e, if you could just hold back on trying to nail the article down to some fixed point, that would be great. Misplaced Pages articles change, they mature with collaborative input, they get better. The Lynx article has some major problems, particularly in sourcing, and we're going to fix them. I'm particularly heartened by the interest shown by all editors in improvement. Now, I try not to be wedded to any one viewpoint - none of us "owns" the article and if evidence or consensus moves away from my preferred position, that's fine. I'm often wrong. But the big thing is that we have robust, fact-based discussion, we play by the rules, we work together. It doesn't help us move the thing forward by being overly fixated on any one preferred version. I wasn't wedded to "concept", nor am I committed to "program". I'm flexible and I'm concerned that you aren't. That's not an attitude that can work in a collaborative environment such as Misplaced Pages. Attachment necessarily leads to conflict and unhappiness.

Certainly I'm playing devil's advocate here, but within myself I'm as big a spacenut as anybody.

The bottom line is that Misplaced Pages isn't about any one editor. Not me. Not you. It's about coöperation.

Lastly, let me commend to you the words of Marsilio Ficino: Three things in particular patience teaches us, it seems to me: first, that you should be willing to bear cheerfully the ills that nature herself bids you bear unwillingly; second, that you should make those things that fate has decreed to be inevitable, agreeable to your own will; third, that you should turn any evil whatsoever into good, which is the office of God alone. in the first of these, patience requires you to oppose nature, in the second, to confound fate, and in the third, to raise yourself to the level of God. --Pete (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more, Skyring/Pete, patience is a virtue.

I've been working on that daily for a couple of weeks now, endeavoring to be steadfastly civil with you, and constructive in working to improve the article content, despite your generally disruptive editing, your edit war on the first BRD, your WP:FORUMSHOPPING (all of which have not been supporting either your specific edits, nor of your disruptive actions), your WP:AfD of a notable and sourced article (on which you received no support from over a half dozen uninvolved editors), and your repeated refusal to allow an article to rest in a base state (for the benefit of our readers, and also per WP:BRD process) during an active Bold/Revert/Discussion cycle on the Talk page.

So I will continue to stay civil. And, as again today, I will refuse to edit war with you. But I will call out your repeated refusal to comply with standard BRD process, when you insist that your Bold edits should stay despite multiple other editors on the Talk page telling you they should not. I'm rather committed to endeavoring to improve the encyclopedia, one article at a time, and Lynx (spacecraft) appears to be a very active place to be doing that just now. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. I don't think you've grasped the intent of Ficino, but that's okay. --Pete (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say thank you for your patience and diligence on the recent BRD process on the Lynx page. I think the discussion generated is twice as long as the actual page! --IanOsgood (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Admin Noticeboard

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

methane

We are both updating the methane article at the same time. Please put back my new paragraph on Project Morpheus. Andrew Swallow (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry, Andrew, for doing something like that. I'll go over there right now and endeavor to tidy up. Stand by... N2e (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

... okay, back now. I looked real hard—here's the diff—and I don't see where I deleted your Project Morpheus paragraph. If you have something else to show me, I'll be glad to get back here to this Talk page later on in a few hours and look again. In the meantime, I will stay out of the article for a while in the event you decide to do more with it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Panic over. The problem appears to have sorted itself out. I added an extra reference to complete the section. Note:Some odd error messages are being generated by Wiki at the moment. Andrew Swallow (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries, then. Consider this one  Done. N2e (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Space Shuttle Main Engine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• exhaust velocity|effective exhaust velocities]] of 4,440 m/s and 3,560 m/s respectively),{{citation needed (lead)) consumes {{convert|1340|L|USgal|abbr=on}} of propellant per second, has a mass of approximately {{

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for the auto-bot detection and notification of that typo! N2e (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Subscription template

Hey N2e, thanks for placing those Subscription templates, but note that you've been placing them inside the citation template. Might want to move them outside for display purposes, and so there's no potential muckups for future formatting. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, bummer. I really tried looking up things like "WP:subscription required" and "WP:CITE" and "WP:citation templates" before I did that, searching for "subscription required" before I made the edits. Couldn't find anything. (which may be a deficiency worth fixing if you know how best to do such things...)

In any case, I finally just located another use in some article of {{subscription required}} and used that format. I also carefully checked my first use to ensure it looked okay in the article. All the changes I made seem to show the info about the paywall and subscription required just fine. Is there some bot that can detect whatever you think may be wrong, and do the magic to put the {{subscription required}} info in the correct place?

I'll be sure not to so locate them inside the cite templates in the future.N2e (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Only after I started the updates to reflect that newspacewatch.com has gone to a paywall business model, only then did I see at least one instance somewhere (don't recall where) where someone changed a {{subscription required}} inside a citation template to a "|subscription=yes" parm/value pair inside the cite template. Don't yet know if/how that is preferred to the {{subscription required}} approach, but it looked promising if I ever need to do a bunch of these cleanups in the future.

So net, there is a LOT I don't know about this. But I do think that any known paywall-source is worth noting, and maybe some archiving bot will figure out how to find the old sources through use of the wayback machine or some such technique/technology that I'm not particularly knowledgeable about. I thought flagging these was important, especially since I probably am the editor who added a lot of the newspacewatch.com cites to those many articles, as it's on my regular reading list, and for many months did not have a paywall in place. Unfortunately, with the paywall in place, I'm hardly ever sourcing anything to NewSpace Watch any longer as I don't think paywall sources are optimal for Misplaced Pages.N2e (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree...I won't be using that site again. It is rather on the fringe of awareness anyhow, with Space.com and NASA Spaceflight being far more prominent. As for the display issue, when placed inside the "cite ..." template, the tag gets stuck inside whatever parameter it was with. For example, placing it like "|date=2013-05-07 {{Subscription required}} }}</ref>" renders as "Lindsey, Clark (2013-05-07 (subscription required))." However, I was unaware of the |subscription=yes parameter, which after testing shows itself to be perfect here, since it includes a mouseover note stating that "Sources are not required to be available online." I would definitely recommend it in the future, and I'll go through and fix the misplaced templates now. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool, it was  Fixed by Huntster, and we both learned about the new cite template parm "|subscription=yes" in the process. Thanks for your efforts to use AWB and clean that up! N2e (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, although I've never used AWB (to my recollection), I had a vague memory that perhaps I had intended to do so. I just checked the AWB check list and found my name is on it, so I guess I was approved by an admin (probably several years ago...) and then just never took the time to get over the hurdle of learning enough to actually do it. Looks like maybe I should do so, to help automate some of this sort of repetitive cleanup of various articles.N2e (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi! I made some corrections to the Bed sizes article (not the most important one...), which immediately got reverted by you. I'd recommend you to save these kind of reverts to slightly more important issues, and that you consider the rest of the article before you press revert...

From the other comments on your talk page (and in the archive) I see that you hit the revert button quite often, and that you leave somewhat paternalistic messages when you do. I think you should read Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary especially when dealing with good faith efforts.

Ebben (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express

N2e, I just wanted to point out that User CorporateM removed your recent contribution to Suburban Express article in a stealth edit which supposedly added a clarification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Suburban_Express&diff=580292474&oldid=580259980

This is a pattern which CorporateM seems to routinely follow when twisting this article to his POV. If you are an admin, perhaps you will want to look at SlimVirgin's suggestions on the article's talk page.

Best Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No, not an admin. But I'll try to get over there and take a look in the next day or so. N2e (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, n2e. It's great to have someone with an econ background looking at the Suburban Express article. You've proposed some sensible changes. But, as you can see, CorpM has a very strong point of view. The Suburban Express story is about a 19 year old kid who attacked incumbent Greyhound, decreased fares, increased frequency, and decreased travel times and then weathered attacks based on regulatory capture, predatory pricing, and (not covered in any press) harrassment by the Chicago Transit Authority, which leased space to Greyhound. It is novel in that S.E. sidestepped economic regulation which was designed to ensure legacy carriers (greyhound, et al) a fair return on their investment but which had morphed into a system that supported inefficiency, high fares, and lousy service. Since you teach, I imagine you can appreciate the issues we have with students trying to get what they want, regardless of the agreement they have with us.

e have battled all sorts of fraud during the course of our history - people making fake tickets, tons of bad checks, people passing their receipt out the bathroom window to a friend who then tells driver he is getting back on, and so forth. Fraud has lead to collection action of various forms, and it recently got some negative press because a small handful of nasty little assholes decided to devote their lives to trashing us. Their actions have not impacted ridership, but they have frustrated my employees and I by trashing us online wherever they get the chance. My instincts tell me that the user who is most committed to injecting POV into the article was contacted by one of the haters, who works in PR for the university and has contacts in that world.

The supposed "controversy" is a mish-mash of different issues that the haters are promoting, all rolled into one: 1) we filed 100ish small claims suits in a short period of time. the number was unusual because we had about a 2 year backlog of debts to collect; 2) A subcontracted driver was rude to a student who does not speak english. He was promptly reprimanded and we sought to apologize to the passenger, but did not succeed in identifying her. A loudmouth narcissistic attention seeking student who was on the bus posted the story to facebook from the bus and spent every waking moment posting the story everywhere he could. 3) This led to a situation on Reddit where the loudmouth and his friends were trashing S.E. as best they could and the moderator started manipulating the conversation, by deleting comments made in support of S.E. That got out of hand and our attorney sent a demand letter to the moderator. The moderator then exploited free-speech bloggers and caused the BIG STORY to spread. Self-interest came into play - Reddit is owned by conde nast. Reddit benefits from awareness of reddit. Reddit can only exist if users are free to say whatever they want. Conde Nast also owns Ars Technica. Ars Technica wrote several blog posts about how horrible SE is for trying to suppress free speech on reddit. See how this works? Downstream lower-quality blogs regurgitated the free-speech story.

Two of the haters, now armed with SOURCES, took to Misplaced Pages and transformed this https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Suburban_Express&oldid=542659074 into a very skewed mess. Then the problem became recursive - bloggers mentioned wikipedia, which led readers to trash the wikipedia page even more. Wiki editors cited the articles that cited wikipedia and the list of blogs that had covered the matter grew and grew. Now, the haters assert that the body of trash-news justifies giving the trash significant weight in the article - to the point where the real story of the company is pushed out. You can see this in corpm's proposed edit. He wants to remove from the lede the fact that the company was started by a student, and other key facts.

In any event, I applaud your efforts to move the article in a more academic direction, and I'm glad that someone with an econ background has arrived on-scene. You may find some stuff here interesting: http://www.toeppen.com

Best Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)