Content deleted Content added
John Carter (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{#if:|<div style="background:white; border:2px Blue solid; padding:12px;">|}} |
|||
{{#ifeq:|true|==|}}'''Welcome!''' <small>(''We can't say that loudly enough!'')</small>{{#ifeq:|true|==|'''}} |
|||
<p>Hello, Fearofreprisal, and '''''[[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome to Wikipedia]]!''''' I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:</p> |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|'''Be Bold!''']] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes|Learn from others]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Etiquette|Play nicely with others]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia|Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:User page|Tell us a bit about yourself]] |
|||
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the '''[[Wikipedia:New contributors' help page|new contributors' help page]]''', where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type '''<code>{{helpme}}</code>''' on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. |
|||
Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. |
|||
We're so glad you're here! [[User:Gaueko|Gaueko]] ([[User talk:Gaueko|talk]]) 04:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)</p>{{#if:|</div>|}} -- [[User:Gaueko|Gaueko]] ([[User talk:Gaueko|talk]]) 04:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Word (and Barnstar) to the Wise == |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|[[File:Resilient Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]|[[File:Resilient Barnstar.png|100px]]}} |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Resilient Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | As per your comments on the block message, I think you have indeed learned. I encourage you to serve as a Wikipedian editor first, and commentator on Thomas second. Your edits, not the message, will improve -- which is what we strive for as editors. And by doing so the story about Thomas will improve. Be sure to provide balance wherever you can. Perhaps a challenge, but I think you are a truly Resilient Wikipedian. [[User:Srich32977|S. Rich]] ([[User talk:Srich32977|talk]]) 04:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
== Ping Fu: updated ''Memoir'' section for review == |
|||
Hi Fearofreprisal, thanks again for your detailed feedback on my Ping Fu draft. I've posted an [[User_talk:16912_Rhiannon/Ping_Fu#Memoir|updated version of the ''Memoir'' section]] for your review. Let me know when you've had a chance to look at the section and my comments. If you're happy with the updated section I'll drop it into the draft. Thanks, [[User:16912_Rhiannon|16912 Rhiannon]] ([[User talk:16912_Rhiannon|Talk]] · [[User:16912_Rhiannon|COI]]) 14:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. == |
|||
[[File:Peacedove.svg|60px|left]] |
|||
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard]] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "[[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Historicity of Jesus|Historicity of Jesus]]". <span style="border:2.5px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:MrScorch6200|<font style="color:Navy;background:cyan;">'''MrScorch6200''']] ([[User talk:MrScorch6200|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/MrScorch6200|ctrb]])</font></span> 02:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> |
|||
== Historicity of Jesus == |
|||
We must take the highest road possible. We can not argue sources or specific content. I've reviewed the history of conversation in the talk pages going back 6 months. This insanity can only be brought to an end by driving home the message that authority is not vested in theologians from the US. My target is to get firm agreement that the article be broken into sections based on general perspectives: religious, biblical scholarships (with subsections for the various paradigms -maximalist to minimalist) and other (archaeology, literary criticism, sociology, anthropology, etc..). What do you think? --[[User:IseeEwe|IseeEwe]] ([[User talk:IseeEwe|talk]]) 16:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: {{ping|IseeEwe}} You're dealing with a group of people who are very knowledgeable, with carefully constructed arguments and sources, great skill at using WP, and who are far more persistent than you. I suspect you'll tire of this Quixotic quest. |
|||
: My focus is very limited: To get a consensus on scope, and strip out that which is out of scope. [[User:Fearofreprisal|Fearofreprisal]] ([[User talk:Fearofreprisal#top|talk]]) 22:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I wonder at how knowledgeable they really are. I started my academic career with a focus on biblical exegesis, and realised how futile it was as an approach to historical events in the first century, and so became an archaeologist with a speciality in early first century Roman mortuaria and a sub-speciality in the philosophy of science, where I examined epistemological questions related to knowledge production. I probably forgot more then they know about many of these matters. About WP, I know nothing. I must plead simple ignorance and good will. The article is labelled non-neutral POV. If this is so then by definition the content is considered biased and unsuitable. Change must be made. I appreciated your comments in the moderated discussion. If this fails I will escalate further. I have already made inquires. We'll see. --[[User:IseeEwe|IseeEwe]] ([[User talk:IseeEwe|talk]]) 01:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Formal mediation has been requested == |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
| <!---MedComBot-Do-not-remove-this-line-Notified-Historicity of Jesus--->The [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee|Mediation Committee]] has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Historicity of Jesus". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. [[Wikipedia:Mediation|Mediation]] is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Historicity of Jesus|request page]], the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy|formal mediation policy]], and the [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide|guide to formal mediation]], '''please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate.''' Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 August 2014. |
|||
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.<br> |
|||
<small>Message delivered by [[User:MediationBot|MediationBot]] ([[User talk:MediationBot|talk]]) on [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#MediationBot|behalf]] of the Mediation Committee. 23:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)</small> |
|||
}} |
|||
== DRN escalation recommendation to ANI and Mediation re Historicity of Jesus == |
|||
Just FYI |
|||
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Long_standing_editorial_POV_issues_at_Historicity_of_Jesus ANI request]] |
|||
*[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Historicity_of_Jesus#Decision_of_the_Mediation_Committee Mediation request]]I believe the process works that if you Accept mediation that we can then reduce it to some mutually agreeable scope. If we start by asking for more then we expect to obtain, then when it is cut down to size we will still end up with more than we really need to bring balance back to the article. Please reconsider and please join in the discussion. Your moderate, calm and centred approach will win the day. I am sure of it. |
|||
--[[User:IseeEwe|IseeEwe]] ([[User talk:IseeEwe|talk]]) 01:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Thank You == |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:alt|alt|[[File:Kindness Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]|[[File:Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png|100px]]}} |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For being nice to noobs like me [[User:IseeEwe|IseeEwe]] ([[User talk:IseeEwe|talk]]) 01:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
== Off-topic comments == |
|||
I have removed the "Ian.thomson" section from [[Talk:Historicity of Jesus]] since it was not in the least related to improving that article. If you can provide [[WP:DIFF|diffs]] of problematic user behaviour, [[WP:RFC/U]] would be the appropriate venue, not the article talk page. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 02:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|Huon}} I didn't accuse him of problematic behavior. I just asked him what is agenda is (with respect to improving the article, of course.) I think other editors (including those he has called names and misquoted) would be interested in hearing what he has to say to this. |
|||
Had I actually accused him of incivility, the first step at [[WP:Incivility#Dealing_with_incivility]] is "consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Clarify, and ask for clarification." My post was clearly asking for clarification. |
|||
I'll revert your edit now. [[User:Fearofreprisal|Fearofreprisal]] ([[User talk:Fearofreprisal#top|talk]]) 02:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:This is still a discussion of user conduct, not article content. The article's talk page is the wrong venue. In any case you should provide diffs. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 02:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|Huon}} Per [[WP:TPO]]: "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission... Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." |
|||
I object. |
|||
If you want to go to dispute resolution over this, we can certainly do that. 03:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Accusing me of "calling" editors with terms you have a problem with isn't an accusation of incivility? Especially in light of you taking a quote from my page about being more concerned with enforcing policy than bullying for my personal views, with the unevidenced implication that I'm doing the latter? Ok, you're just twisting everyone's words and policy to suit your needs, but that's not an accusation of dishonest wikilawyering, and this isn't sarcasm. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 03:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Ian.thomson}} - Sorry; not being an English major, I sometimes need to resort to the best word I can think of at the time. I shall go back and fix it. |
|||
:: I accept at face value your statement regarding bullying. [[User:Fearofreprisal|Fearofreprisal]] ([[User talk:Fearofreprisal#top|talk]]) 07:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::There's still the bad faith assumption I am operating with an agenda other than keeping things within policy. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 09:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Third opinion == |
|||
Hi! I [[Special:Diff/620166211|declined]] your request for third opinion for [[Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Ian.thomson]] dispute, because [[WP:3O]] deals with ''content'' disputes, while this one revolves purely around conduct. You may want to use some form of conduct dispute resolution, eg. [[WP:ANI|administrators noticeboard]] or [[WP:RFC/U|request for comment on user conduct]]. (If you decide to reply to this comment, please prepend {{tlg|ping|czarkoff}} to your answer so that I get notified of your response.) — [[user:czarkoff|Dmitrij D. Czarkoff]] ([[user talk:czarkoff|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/czarkoff|track]]) 00:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Prods of state legislators == |
|||
Hi Fearofreprisal, |
|||
I've noticed you've prodded some Arizona state legislators, referring just to [[WP:POLITICIAN]]. It wasn't initially clear to me why you thought those should be deleted, as WP:POLITICIAN implies they are probably notable. However, I see from your comment on Dru of Id's talk page that you are actually nominating the articles for deletion based on not meeting the General Notability Guideline. I find it unlikely that a state legislator would actually fail [[WP:GNG]], as they are almost certain to have received coverage in reliable sources in relation to their campaign and election. I think it would be best to take cases like this to AFD rather than prodding them, as you are making a case that they should be deleted despite meeting the criteria at WP:POLITICIAN and despite being a type of article normally kept per [[WP:OUTCOMES]]. That doesn't seem like the sort of non-controversial deletion candidate that PROD is intended for. At the very least, if you don't want to start an AFD, could you please expand the prod rationale to better explain that you think they fail the general notability guideline despite meeting the criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. Thanks. [[User:Calathan|Calathan]] ([[User talk:Calathan|talk]]) 15:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== ANI notice == |
== ANI notice == |
||
Line 111: | Line 10: | ||
::::You have regularly and rather systemtically woefully misused the article talk page, often in a condescending manner, which, given your own disregard for or incompetence to understand basic [[WP:TPG]], comes across as ridiculously laughable. You have apparently made no effort to review any prior discussions, perhaps seemingly in what could be seen as further evidence of arrogant incompetence. You have made statements indicating that you have no awareness of the fact that the article is, as per the Jesus sidebar, one of the main subtopics of Jesus and more or less should summarize as per [[WP:SS]] the various subarticles. In short, you give the impression of being a newbie with a profound ego but little real knowledge of the topic and less knowledge or awareness of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please make an effort to read [[WP:TPG]] and try to realize that, despite your own obvious conviction of your personal genius, what others probably see is something which may not merit any sort of strongly positive description, and also that [[WP:CONSENSUS]] applies to those with questionably high opinions of themselves too. If you want to do something truly positive and not so perhaps self-serving, check to see if you have access to the recent ''Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historicity of Jesus,'' which I don't have ready access to, and, maybe, try to realize that, unless you are a professional in the field, however high your opinion of yourself might be, the authors there probably know more about the subject and are better sources for our content than yourself and your OR speculations regarding their possible bias.[[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 16:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC) |
::::You have regularly and rather systemtically woefully misused the article talk page, often in a condescending manner, which, given your own disregard for or incompetence to understand basic [[WP:TPG]], comes across as ridiculously laughable. You have apparently made no effort to review any prior discussions, perhaps seemingly in what could be seen as further evidence of arrogant incompetence. You have made statements indicating that you have no awareness of the fact that the article is, as per the Jesus sidebar, one of the main subtopics of Jesus and more or less should summarize as per [[WP:SS]] the various subarticles. In short, you give the impression of being a newbie with a profound ego but little real knowledge of the topic and less knowledge or awareness of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please make an effort to read [[WP:TPG]] and try to realize that, despite your own obvious conviction of your personal genius, what others probably see is something which may not merit any sort of strongly positive description, and also that [[WP:CONSENSUS]] applies to those with questionably high opinions of themselves too. If you want to do something truly positive and not so perhaps self-serving, check to see if you have access to the recent ''Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historicity of Jesus,'' which I don't have ready access to, and, maybe, try to realize that, unless you are a professional in the field, however high your opinion of yourself might be, the authors there probably know more about the subject and are better sources for our content than yourself and your OR speculations regarding their possible bias.[[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 16:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::{{yo|John Carter}}I was going to ask yet again what POV you think I'm pushing, but it seems pretty futile at this time. |
:::::{{yo|John Carter}}I was going to ask yet again what POV you think I'm pushing, but it seems pretty futile at this time. |
||
::::Regarding the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus,'' (not the ''Historicity of Jesus,''): I've actually reviewed it, and found that, as I expected, it was a good source for historical Jesus research, but quite lacking in useful information on Historicity. (The two being distinct.) The authors there are pretty much the same ones already cited in the article. No big deal. |
|||
If you actually want an authoritative reference on historicity, check out (Hall, J. (2007). Historicity and Sociohistorical Research. In W. Outhwaite, & S. Turner (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Science Methodology. (pp. 82-102). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607958.n5 ), or (Hall, J. (2007). History, methodologies, and the study of religion. In J. Beckford, & N. Demerath (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of the sociology of religion. (pp. 167-189). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607965.n9 |
|||
). They're both fully cited, and quite thorough. [[User:Fearofreprisal|Fearofreprisal]] ([[User talk:Fearofreprisal#top|talk]]) 22:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Request for mediation rejected == |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
| The [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation|request for formal mediation]] concerning Historicity of Jesus, to which you were listed as a party, has been [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide#Rejected requests|declined]]. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Historicity of Jesus|mediation request page]], which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#Chair|Chairman]] of the Committee, or to the [[User:Mediation Committee|mailing list]]. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]. |
|||
For the Mediation Committee, [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] ([[User talk:Sunray|talk]]) 04:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)<br> |
|||
<small>(Delivered by [[User:MediationBot|MediationBot]], [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#MediationBot|on behalf of]] the Mediation Committee.)</small> |
|||
}} |
|||
:::::Regarding the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus,'' (not the ''Historicity of Jesus,''): I've actually reviewed it, and found that, as I expected, it was a good source for historical Jesus research, but quite lacking in useful information on Historicity. (The two being distinct.) The authors there are pretty much the same ones already cited in the article. No big deal. |
|||
== Response == |
|||
:::::If you actually want an authoritative reference on historicity, check out (Hall, J. (2007). Historicity and Sociohistorical Research. In W. Outhwaite, & S. Turner (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Science Methodology. (pp. 82-102). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607958.n5 ), or (Hall, J. (2007). History, methodologies, and the study of religion. In J. Beckford, & N. Demerath (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of the sociology of religion. (pp. 167-189). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607965.n9 ). They're both fully cited, and quite thorough. [[User:Fearofreprisal|Fearofreprisal]] ([[User talk:Fearofreprisal#top|talk]]) 22:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{Talkback|Dru of Id}} |
|||
== Article talk pages == |
== Article talk pages == |
Revision as of 23:59, 18 August 2014
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- @John Carter: - Well, that ANI was a waste of everyone's time. You got me confused with someone else, then didn't even say what POV you thought I was pushing. Care to clue me in to what your problem with me is? Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you paid any attention to the comments directed at you on the article talk page you would know what many people have already said about your problematic conduct is and has been. Apparently you haven't read what others have said already although I will apologize for confusing one long-term editor with a red-linked and clearly laughably self-serving name for another. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- @John Carter: I'll ask again, and try to be clearer this time: What POV do YOU think I'm pushing? Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- You have regularly and rather systemtically woefully misused the article talk page, often in a condescending manner, which, given your own disregard for or incompetence to understand basic WP:TPG, comes across as ridiculously laughable. You have apparently made no effort to review any prior discussions, perhaps seemingly in what could be seen as further evidence of arrogant incompetence. You have made statements indicating that you have no awareness of the fact that the article is, as per the Jesus sidebar, one of the main subtopics of Jesus and more or less should summarize as per WP:SS the various subarticles. In short, you give the impression of being a newbie with a profound ego but little real knowledge of the topic and less knowledge or awareness of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please make an effort to read WP:TPG and try to realize that, despite your own obvious conviction of your personal genius, what others probably see is something which may not merit any sort of strongly positive description, and also that WP:CONSENSUS applies to those with questionably high opinions of themselves too. If you want to do something truly positive and not so perhaps self-serving, check to see if you have access to the recent Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historicity of Jesus, which I don't have ready access to, and, maybe, try to realize that, unless you are a professional in the field, however high your opinion of yourself might be, the authors there probably know more about the subject and are better sources for our content than yourself and your OR speculations regarding their possible bias.John Carter (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- @John Carter: I'll ask again, and try to be clearer this time: What POV do YOU think I'm pushing? Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- @John Carter:I was going to ask yet again what POV you think I'm pushing, but it seems pretty futile at this time.
- Regarding the Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, (not the Historicity of Jesus,): I've actually reviewed it, and found that, as I expected, it was a good source for historical Jesus research, but quite lacking in useful information on Historicity. (The two being distinct.) The authors there are pretty much the same ones already cited in the article. No big deal.
- If you actually want an authoritative reference on historicity, check out (Hall, J. (2007). Historicity and Sociohistorical Research. In W. Outhwaite, & S. Turner (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Science Methodology. (pp. 82-102). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607958.n5 ), or (Hall, J. (2007). History, methodologies, and the study of religion. In J. Beckford, & N. Demerath (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of the sociology of religion. (pp. 167-189). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607965.n9 ). They're both fully cited, and quite thorough. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Article talk pages
I have removed your latest irrelevant comment at Talk: Historicity of Jesus here. Article talk pages are there to be used to improve the article as per WP:TPG. Please make some discernible attempt to abide by them. Thank you.John Carter (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is the final warning you will receive regarding your recent regular misuse of article talk pages. As you have been specifically told already, they are intended to be used for developing the article not for comments which seem to serve no purpose beyond assuaging your ego. Please read the relevant WP:TPG, and realize article talk pages exist for the purposes indicated, and that many of your recent comments cannot remotely be seen to serve those purposes. You have been advised of this repeatedly and have no real excuse for your recent egregious behavior. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- We have talk page guidelines for a reason whether you are capable of understanding them or not. If you can't understand that please read WP:CIR.John Carter (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)