This user may have left Wikipedia. Katana0182 has not edited Wikipedia since January 7, 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hello, I see you've made some edits to the University of Massachusetts Amherst article. Did you know there's an entire wiki devoted to UMass at umasswiki.com? Please stop by and make some edits or add articles! We've been around over a year and are serving up to 90,000 pages a month, but we could really use more good editors. :) --Neurophyre^(talk) 09:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your recent edit in the "Statutory proceedings" section of the "Inherent Contempt" page was excellent and did indeed expand the understanding of the ideological conflict going on between Congress and the President while stil maintaining a NPOV

--bowa

Re your edit [1], yes it does need a citation, but I have seen it (in high school history) said that due to England's lack of ability to fight a war against Germany after the demilitatisation after WWI led them to appease rather than confront Hitler. Your help in finding citations would be appreciated as I have no idea where to look for history sources....Shniken1 (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Plausible to deny (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you might be willing to suggest ways to edit my writing to make it more succinct, less wordy -- more effective?

I hesitate to add this to the talk page at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer for fear that someone will complain that it has "too many words." In a context which arises before I posted my initial edit to that article's second paragraph, it becomes possible to begin to appreciate what's gone so very wrong as the result of an unthinking reliance on Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org. An unmindful insistence on what is published in a reference book without giving due weight to consequences which flow from the Japanese context leads inexorably to mistakes in some instances.

Wikipedia's current treatment of JDS Hyūga implicates deep-rooted paradigms based on premises which effectively function to exclude or excise crucial issues from the body of the article; and this becomes a defect when it affects significant content which remains otherwise inextricable in reality. Relying solely on English-language naval ship catalogs, the edit history reveals how otherwise credible edits and edits have thwarted, deleted or blocked, thus stunting this subject's development -- see Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Article name

Personally, of course, I don't care what the article about JDS Hyūga is named, nor do I care about the terminology used to describe this vessel -- but I'm persuaded that WP:NPOV expects us all to care very much about the "why" which informs whatever name or terminology is selected.

Although generally valued as highly credible resources, Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org promote systemic bias in at least this one instance because their congruent terminology derives from primary sources bearing the imprimatur of the Japanese government. As such, reliance on this "gold standard" for descriptive terminology relating to Japanese naval ships is defensible, and any reasoned consensus based on such standards is also defensible; however, neither can be considered determinative. There is an inherent caveat in reliance on the imprimatur of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force and the newly formed Ministry of Defense (Japan). When the logical progeny of such reliance produce deleterious effects in Wikipedia, this subtle cancer mandates giving more than lip-service to WP:V and WP:NPOV.

As you may know, the Constitution of Japan prohibits "aircraft carriers"; and therefore the Japanese quite sensibly identify the JDS Hyūga with a unique, non-aircraft carrier name. In Japan, if ducks were prohibited by the Japanese Constitution, then something which waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and behaves like a duck would be sensibly given a unique non-duck name. As it relates to use of the term "aircraft carrier," this unique bias is informed by the constitution which was imposed during the post-war occupation by the Americans; and it, along with many other salutatory aspects of the Constitution, has been embraced by subsequent generations of Japanese.

Among the Japanese, the practical decision-making which sometimes calls for a prudent substitution of flexible notions of "fiction" for "fact" is recorded across the span of centuries. This aspect of Japanese history and culture need not intrude into this Wikipedia article about the Hyūga except when an otherwise useful fiction is proffered as sufficient rationale for devaluing, denying, and deleting edits and citations (consistent with WP:V) which state that JDS Hyūga is an aircraft carrier with another name.

Sdsds construes the phenomenon in terms of a familiar line from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet -- in that passage in which Juliet muses about "that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet". In my view, this specific quotation does capture the essence of a very important aspect of this somewhat complicated issue.

Perhaps a more apt illustrative exchange is to be found in Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew in that scene in which Petruccio looks at the sun and defies his new wife to disagree when he identifies it as the moon -- especially in that passage which begins, "I say it is the moon ...

In that Wikipedia article about the first of the Hyūga-class vessels, I would hope to make a constructive contribution by re-casting this controversy using medical terminolgy:

In oncology, the metastasis of cancer is conventionally described as insidious or "developing so gradually as to be well-established before becoming apparent." It is also well-known to be pernicious or "highly injurious or destructive." It is unfortunate that criticism of Wikipedia has not yet encompassed the oncological model, but it is arguably true that the metastasis of systemic bias, like cultural bias elsewhere, is insidious, pernicious and sometimes invasive.

Prior to this, the non-NPOV problems in Hyūga class helicopter destroyer have escaped a thorough examination. The thin record of postings in the initial section of the talk page suggests a nascent pattern of thwarting discussion and inquiry; and the subsequent record on that talk page confirms this unwanted hypothesis.

Across the arc of talk page exchanges amongst potential contributors and others, the consequences of intense, concerted resistance made it impossible even to reach a threshold from which to begin parsing aspects of this non-NPOV cancer. Such illustrative "consensus" becomes a powerful element of proof -- a multi-faceted demonstration of an undetected, highly persistent, insidious and pernicious problem.

Initial examination of this suspect article included a complete review of the edit history, including scrutiny of relevant external links which were deleted without any efforts to incorporate plausibly useful data.

An ameliorative edit was initiated. This involved one sentence only, supported by an in-line citation with an external link to a credible source. The talk page record reveals that this precisely-targeted intervention was reverted twice without substantive discussion. The edit encountered further resistance which blocked access to any threshold from which to begin to address the unacknowledged bias which remains the article's pervasive flaw. --Tenmei (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. It's nice to see that we could avoid an edit war; I respect all your edits (and I hope you respect mine). Yes, I do assume good faith and nothing I wrote was directed against you. The article itself though is clearly unbalanced at this time, reads almost like a manifesto. I might write a more detailed answer to you later. Thanks. Gregorik (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll attempt to refine my statements (within the article) in view of your message -- in a week or two. To reply one of your questions, I was trying to sum up in the intro how I think much of the contemporary world (incl. Europe and the US Left) interprets the phrase American exceptionalism when confronted with it. Obviously I don't own the article either so please feel free to add to it further. Thanks for reading. Gregorik (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your comment: "Boycotts are lawful under the common law and non-violent. The right to engage in commerce implies the right not to engage in commerce.)"

you are right, of course, but the rent strikes were not a boycott. Rather they led to the adoption of boycotting as a method. The right not to pay an agreed rent can only lead to a) negotiations to reduce the debt or b) the tenant leaving.86.42.200.37 (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katana, for The Burke Group if you just revert to the previous version that I last edited, you'll see it magically no longer is an advertisement - because a few anonymous people keep turning into one, and excising terms like "union buster" and any neutral info about what they actually do. So please go ahead and revert! Wikidea 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have added a long list of Japanese war crimes in this article in order to give an un-warranted reason why Americans were motivated to murder Japanese-Americans. The problem with the list is obvious. Not only do the war crimes fail to establish a causal link to being motivated into Jap hunts, but many of the war crimes you listed were not within the knowledge of Americans at the time 'Jap hunts' occurred. Another user has deleted your contribution with respect to these reasons however, you allege that edit was vandalism and restored your own edit. This suggests two things about your motive for editing the article, firstly you are an apologists for those who took part in the Jap Hunts, believing that listing a long series of Japanese war crimes would seem to mitigate the sting against Jap Hunt participants, if not vindicate them. Secondly you were motivated by your own anti-Japanese sentiment, going as far as to reject the victimhood of Americans of Japanese descent who were subject to these hunts.

These allegations are not without ground. If you would refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jap_hunts&diff=251012165&oldid=244719493, this shows that you made further edits that display your anti-Japanese sentiments that were promptly deleted by another user for its clearly racist tone. I now put it to you to defend your own contributions or else face deletion for non-NPOV compliance.

Kilimanjaronum,

I've received your message. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katana0182#Jap_Hunt_Article_revisionism)

In your message, you state the following:

1. "firstly you are an apologists"

2. "Secondly you were motivated by your own anti-Japanese sentiment".

3. "This shows that you made further edits that display your anti-Japanese sentiments that were promptly deleted by another user for its clearlyracist tone."

You have - at the least - very strongly implied that I am an apologist for racialistic violence, that I have anti-Japanese sentiment, and that I am a racist. I will not dignify these comments by replying to the allegations that you have made. They are deeply offensive.

I find your attitude to be not in compliance with assuming good faith, which is a policy on this site. It's also a violation of theno personal attacks policy. This sort of personal attack is deeply offensive and unbecoming of an editor on this Project.

With all due respect, I would suggest that you criticize the edits that I made, not accuse me as a person. If you wish to discuss the edit or the diff in question, please feel free to leave a WP:CIVIL and substantive message on my talk page, and then I will be more than happy to discuss it.

Katana0182 (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reposted on user talk page of User:Kilimanjaronum; posted on userpage in error.

Katana0182 (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Katana0182's talk page. Katana0182 (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Katana0182. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Note:Keep in mind that Squadron members officially state they are not inclusionists. ~~~~

Thanks for your moderate message. 1920-21 courts were not independent; they were held under the pressure of the invader armies. And also they only judged some 'local' officers, which does not suit within a genocide term. Malta was never completed; and from that time to our day; no other international court decision calls the event as a genocide. That is also why, Armenian terrorism -ASALA- killed dozens of Turkish diplomats.--hnnvansier (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you are aware, but you were quoted by the indepdent at Is wikipedia cracking up?.

It says:

Its detractors argue that a similar clampdown on the German-language version of Wikipedia has meant it can now take three weeks to see an edit appear there. In Germany, since last summer, all edits to all pages have had to go through flagging. "This will drive away newcomers, create a backlog of massive approval queues, cause an exodus of editors opposed to oversight by the WikiBureaucracy of their edits, cause umpteen edit conflicts, create a system of prior restraint, and place a chilling effect on the development of Wikipedia and the greater Project," user Katana0182 wrote in response to Wales. "This is like assuming bad faith on a massive scale."

— http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/so-is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1543527.html

Smallman12q (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty cool. Still, the Independent got it partially wrong, I wasn't writing to Jimbo, I was just commenting on the idea of it, along with like 200 others. I'm glad somebody thinks my argument against the concept is good, because it would be an utter disaster in practice, kind of like destroying WP in order to "save" it. Thanks for pointing it out!Katana0182 (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Something to brag about about in the future=P. Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have seen, I'm not the only one to believe that the wording was POV — cited bits can easily be used to make POV points. Undoing a referenced edit is quite proper if the resulting text is problematic. I'm quite familiar with policies; among other things, deletion policy doesn't apply to the removal of problematic text from articles. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please review the latest modifications to Nuclear optimism?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is straw poll going on Nuclear optimism. Please feel free to weigh in.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Katana0182. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Katana0182. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sewage sludge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 100%. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]