User talk:CHI-Research

Copying within Wikipedia

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Nsibidi into Igbo people. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Igbo people, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please note that original research is not allowed and all edits must adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV), hence remarks like "recently being incorrectly attributed" don't belong into any article. Gawaon (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concern about my use of the phrase "incorrectly attributed..." in reference to a claim that Nsibidi originates among Ekoi/Ejeagham people. Please reread my post, for I provide peer-reviewed citation to support my statement. If so, you accept that if evidences show that a statement is incorrect, why is wrong in stating the fact as is? CHI-Research (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

There's the attribution and there's another opinion that it's incorrect. We can't evaluate who's right in such cases, so all we could say is something like "the attribution is contested". Any in any case, such details belong into the article on the script, not into the article on the Igbo people, where the script is just mentioned in passing. Gawaon (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you show me in Wikipedia policy where it is stated that all opinions are equal regardless of peer-reviewed evidences? Second, if a contributing editor makes an incorrect claim, as in this case, regardless of where the claim is made, the rebuttal should be made in the same place, accordingly, lest readers get thrown into confusion. Readers should not be required to visit a different page to read about the correctness or otherwise of a statement made in a different page. What ought to guide our position is evidence. In this case, I await evidence, photo or archeological, to prove any statement. If not, your guess is as good as mine in terms where this would lead all of us. CHI-Research (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The source you cite is an article from 1909, the one you don't believe in is a book from 2004. Newer is of course not inevitably more correct, but 1909 is almost certainly outdated and in light of newer research can no longer be regarded as a reliable source. Gawaon (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

We are discussing archeological photos and evidences here, so older is actually more preferred, devoid politics. People can 1000 books, spreading untruths, but they amount to nothing in absence of peer-reviewed process. If people write 1000 books today to claim that ancient Egypt was an alien civilization, such books would be for entertainment and propaganda unless Egyptologists are allowed to peer review the books; the least the book writers would be expected to do is to provide their evidence, and, based on their evidence, allow for a peer-reviewed process to be performed by Egyptologists.

In the case of Nsibidi, any paper or book written after 1909 should at a minimum provide photos and archeological evidences against the 1909 work.

So, if the book that you reference has photos and archeological evidences, not mere claims or statements, to locate the origin of Nsibidi, I will be the first to start spreading the news. CHI-Research (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Information from 1909 is likely outdated and can't be used to falsify a newer source from 2004. If you want to make such a claim, you need a newer academic source confirming it. If what you say it true, such a source shouldn't be so hard to find. Gawaon (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Truth remains eternal until disproved by a superior evidence. The world was flat until 15th century because Copernicus showed superior evidence. Instead of turning to a purveyor of falsehood, why not add a sentence to the page to show source of evidences to prove your position. The referenced book is a compilation of 350 African folklores. Show readers specifically what new evidences are provided and in which of the 350 items is it discussed. Page, title, author?

Stating 'old' and 'new' is an approach unbecoming of any serious contributor.

Please letme/readers where the superior evidence is in the referenced book. Send me the evidence or find something else to engage in. CHI-Research (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. Even if you know that something is true that's no good unless we other editors can verify that a reliable source does indeed say so. So where's the recent academic source that makes your case for you? If what you say is true, then it shouldn't be hard to find. If it's true but the academic world doesn't know it yet, then sorry, but you're out of luck here – you'll have to publish a paper accepted by some serious academic journal first before it can be accepted as a reliable source into the Wikipedia, because we don't do original research here.

Copernicus couldn't have changed our world view by editing the Wikipedia (even if it had existed at that time), he had to publish an academic book first. You may be unhappy about this, but it's how our processes work, and if you think about it a little, you'll soon realize that it's the only way it can work, since we simply cannot do the peer reviewing and knowledge evaluation here that the academic community can do, so we have to rely on them doing it for us.

Regarding the 2004 book: I didn't add that source, but the page number is there. You can find it and look it up for yourself. Gawaon (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If you did not provide the citation, did you read Page 299? I ask because, as I informed prior, there are 350 authors in the citation. This means that one of the authors wrote page 299. What is the name of the author, what is the title of the 'folklore'? Again, did you read Page 299? If yes, copy the page and send me please. Or better still, add a sentence to state exactly what the evidence(s) is. Notice how I even explained what the author stated. Do the same or send it to me. Pointing out 'new' and 'old' evidence does not determine. I keep asking what evidence was provided in 2004, by who, and under what title?

Wikipedia expects contributors to cite easily accessible source; my source is a click away from any readers. And your source? It is inaccessible...tell readers what was found/stated/ and source of it.

We can keep going back and forth if my 'OLD' source is on display and your 'NEW' source is not.

You definitely know the right to do...please do it. Tell us author name, title of paper/book out of 350 in the cited book!!! CHI-Research (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not "my source". I didn't add it and I don't know it. But it's a fairly contemporary source and seems reliable. If you think it's wrong, you'll have to prove it. And not by doing your own research, which is not allowed here, but by pointing to a reliable source that proves it. Gawaon (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, who in this world makes the following statement: "...But it's a fairly contemporary source and seems reliable." You are kidding...

By the way I did not do my research. I merely cited Macgregor; everything I presented is in Macgregor's paper.

You on the other hand, see a citiation, without making effort to find it and read, you ASSUME it is "fairly contemporary source" AND....AND..."seems reliable."

You definitely failed on this one...soon Wikipedia and other readers would be alerted on this. CHI-Research (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I have now found and downloaded the African Folklore encyclopedia, the cited article is "Nsibidi: An Indigenous Writing System" by Amanda Carlson, pp. 599–602. The page number was off, but the rest is correct. Here are the relevant excerpts: "The Ejagham of southeastern Nigeria and southwestern Cameroon have developed a nonverbal form of communication, nsibidi [pronounced in-sib-eh-dee], which is displayed as two-dimensional signs, three-dimensional forms, and pantomimed gestures....

"Scholars believe that nsibidi originated among the Ejagham, who use it more extensively than any other group in the region. The spread of nsibidi may have been a result of Ejagham migrations or their practice of selling the secrets of the Ejagham men’s Leopard Society (Ngbe) to their neighbors (the Igbo, Efik, Ibibio, Efut, Banyang, and others)." (p. 599)

Macgregor is referenced there as well, among other sources. Gawaon (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Note also that Macgregor doesn't actually say much about the origin of the script, having just hearsay at his disposal. He writes: "The native tradition of its origin is that it comes from the Uguakima section of the Ibo tribo", who "dwell between Ikorana on the Cross River and Uwet on the Calabar River, and seem to be the people known amongst the Efik people as the Uyanga." He goes on to state that the Uguakima say they got the script from "large baboons called idiok" who "began to write signs on the ground" and used pantomime to explain their meanings (p. 211). That's not exactly a plausible origin store, especially the part about the baboons, and Macgregor doesn't report it as anything else than what it is, namely a local traditional tale or myth. So we'll have to accept, and you'll have to accept, that the understanding of the script's origins has deepened since then and the Uguakima/baboons story is not exactly the state of scientific knowledge anymore. Gawaon (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all I have to thank you for the effort and commend you. Now I take you serious, because you no longer base the discussion on 'old' vs 'new' perspective.

Amanda Carlson of the University of Hartford presents Nsibidi as originating from the Cross River region:

https://www.hartford.edu/unotes/2024/02/amanda-carlson-to-present-writing-into-the-future-with-african-scripts-for-the-humanities-center.aspx

COMMENTS:

1. The author merely stated what 'scholars' believe. Where are the photos and archeological evidences? If you research it further (see "Nsibidi" under Wikipedia), you find that the source of attribution to Ejeagham was that COLONIAL OFFICERS said that more artefacts were collected from the Ejeagham location. No one ever see the "artefacts" the colonial officers saw or collected. My point is that, just as with Amanda Carlson, there are no photos or archeological evidences to support the claims. Amanda Carlson referred to scholars. Who are the scholars? What evidences did they present?

Without any photos and archeological evidences, all these talk about colonial officers and migration are mere conjectures. Period.

2. To be considered a scholarly work in Archeology, you have to document photos and archeological evidences. In that sense, Macgregor remains the first and most reliable ever scholarly documentation on Nsibidi script in terms of origin. He collected photos and archeological evidences as he traveled the region. He was a teacher and reverend missionary. He it was who made it known to the outside world. So his paper is the classic on the origin. Clearly, Macgregor attribute the origin, based on his research, on an Igbo subgroup, Ugwuakim. For me, what should also stand out for any dispassionate readers is that Macgregor verified to find out that Nsibidi was taught in school and used to record court cases in certain Igbo areas. This simply means that Nsibidi was much advanced in the areas than elsewhere.

3. If any scholars or colonial officers would show photos of artefacts from Ejeagham, so that they may be compared to others in existence elsewhere, then scholars could have the basis to reach a conclusion. I am yet to find any papers/books that show any nsibidi artefact more superior, if not the same, as those in the referenced subgroups of Igbos. Until such scholarly is found or done, all writings like Amanda Carlson's are simply citing the same colonial office statements. Is it not curious that colonial officers' claims occurred after 1909, Macgregor published his work. I am emphasizing "colonial officers" because they are the ones who created this Ejeagham narrative. Others them began to reference it and over time scholars like Amanda Carlson began to refer to scholars as the source of their claims. But if you pull the sheet to check, you trace the source of such claim to colonial officers' story or "it spread from Ejeagham by migration." But no one ever sees the specific Ejeagham photos or archeological evidences. So, the Macgregor paper is the only one on origin of Nsibidi that really went through required peer-review process. It remains therefore the most reliable and verifiable on the origin of Nsibidi. CHI-Research (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Also on the Baboon story he narrated what he was told. We know what Nsibidi is and who used it, Ekpe society, which cuts across Aro Confederacy. That Macgregor reported what he was told does not diminish the quality of paper. It only put into question the understanding of the people as per the origin. But there was no counter-narrative known to Macgregor on the origin.

You keep pointing out that more information is now available. To that I ask what is the new information and evidences to prove it? Amanda Carlson is referring to scholars. Is that the new information revealed in 2004? New information has to come in form of photos and archeological findings. If you check Amanda's reference, if any, does it have phots and archeological discovering to attribute the origin to the Ejeagham people? In absence of such a peer-reviewed work, we can state that new information has been found just because a book was published years later. If not a person would publish another book in 2030 with another story (without photos and archeological evidences) to attribute Nsibidi to aliens.

Therefore, the narrative of "Baboon" is typicl of Masquerade or Ekpe society deflection tactics. If you know any African who was initiated in any masquerade group, you would understand the "Baboon" story being told to an uninitiated. I would leave at that. CHI-Research (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The cited chapter is just a short one, and there she doesn't give any specific details on where she got the origin of the script from. But there are references there and no doubt, if you want to research this further, you'll find your answers about the origin of the script there. Besides Macgregor, whom you know already here they are:

• Kalu, O.U. 1978. Writing in Pre-colonial Africa: A Case Study of Nsibidi. In African Cultural Development, ed. Ogbu U.Kalu, pp. 76–83. Enugu: Forth Dimension.
• Talbot, Percy Amaury. 1912. In the Shadow of the Bush. London: Heinemann.
• Thompson, Robert Farris. 1983. Flash of the Spirit. New York: Vintage Books.

Plus Slogar, cited in the article on the script, writes: "Nsibidi is generally thought to have originated among the Ejagham peoples of the northern Cross River region, in large part because colonial investigators found the greatest number and variety of signs among them." That's plausible enough. Why do you doubt it? Gawaon (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Colonial officers claims are plausible enough? The officers forgot to show pictures/photos/artefacts? We should just assume that colonial officers are well intentioned human beings who would forget photos/artefacts to back up their claims. Please stop shaming us...we believe colonial officers and disbelieve a peer-reviewed paper written before the colonial officers came up with their lies?

The Slogar's 1912 paper is well known but its source for the origin is the colonial officers, which should not be discussed at all in absence of photos, artefacts to back up their claims. Trust me, the "officers" did not forget the photos. They did not have any photos or artefacts that were different than those among other peoples. Besides, for Igbo subgroups to be using it in schools and courts, while no documented evidence of similar use elsewhere, the origin of Nsibidi is more than settled, for a dispassionate mind.

For other papers you listed, what is the source of their claims if different from colonial officers' and Macgregor's?

Again, even if 1 million papers are generated in 30 years on the origin of Nsibidi, what are the claims of the 1 million papers and supporting evidences? That is the question. If no independently verifiable evidence exists, they are all conjectures.

Macgregor documented artefacts, photos, interviews in 1909, way before Slogar's colonial officers fib. Given that Slogar came up with that lies 3 years after Macgregor tells a discerning mind that this was a "HIT" job by the British. But they could not show photos and artefacts because none existed or they would be similar to those elsewhere at best.

We then have to go to the peer-reviewed paper of Macgrgor, I know some do not like it, which provides photos, interviews, artefacts before any others recently came up with any conjectures. 2603:7000:CD02:666C:C52F:1112:A1A5:3829 (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Colonial officers claims are plausible enough? The officers forgot to show pictures/photos/artefacts? We should just assume that colonial officers are well intentioned human beings who would forget photos/artefacts to back up their claims. Please stop shaming us...we believe colonial officers and disbelieve a peer-reviewed paper written before the colonial officers came up with their lies?

The Slogar's 1912 paper is well known but its source for the origin is the colonial officers, which should not be discussed at all in absence of photos, artefacts to back up their claims. Trust me, the "officers" did not forget the photos. They did not have any photos or artefacts that were different than those among other peoples. Besides, for Igbo subgroups to be using it in schools and courts, while no documented evidence of similar use elsewhere, the origin of Nsibidi is more than settled, for a dispassionate mind.

For other papers you listed, what is the source of their claims if different from colonial officers' and Macgregor's?

Again, even if 1 million papers are generated in 30 years on the origin of Nsibidi, what are the claims of the 1 million papers and supporting evidences? That is the question. If no independently verifiable evidence exists, they are all conjectures.

Macgregor documented artefacts, photos, interviews in 1909, way before Slogar's colonial officers fib. Given that Slogar came up with that lies 3 years after Macgregor tells a discerning mind that this was a "HIT" job by the British. But they could not show photos and artefacts because none existed or they would be similar to those elsewhere at best.

We then have to go to the peer-reviewed paper of Macgrgor, I know some do not like it, which provides photos, interviews, artefacts before any others recently came up with any conjectures. CHI-Research (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You keep stating that Ugwuakim attribute their source to "Baboons" but the Ejagham attributes their source to "Mermaids."(Thompson, Robert Farris 2010). That is why I keep stating to you that, if you are African, then you understand why they attribute it Baboons/Mermaids or aliens. Apparently, the Europeans see the writing as something unique and Africans they spoke wanted to make it seem mysterious. This way of thinking among Africans is tied to the masquerade/Ekpe way of talking to uninitiated, to attribute things to animals, gods etc. That is how I understand that.

The authors' you listed did not show evidence of their claims with photos and artefacts. There is no way you can explain the origin based on migration because there are verifiable evidences of Ekpe spreading it. You cannot use the colonial officers because they did not show any photos/artefacts to back up their claims of varieties.

So tell me what evidences any authors provided different from Slogar (1912) and Macgregor (1909). CHI-Research (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

First: please log in before you edit, otherwise it's confusing.

Then: From where do you take your claim about "colonial officers"? As far as I can see, that's just your fabrication, since you don't cite any source for it. And by now I've found statements about the origin of the script among the Ekoi/Ejagham in the books by Talbot and Thompson (referenced above), who aren't colonial officers.

These are all serious, academic, peer-reviewed publications, and you could refute them only by pointing to equally serious academic publications to counter their claims – but you haven't done so. If you have such sources, please name them now. Macgregor doesn't count, since he himself writes that the Ugwuakim attributed the origin of the script to someone else – though whom they might have meant by the "baboons" is anybody's guess.

Finally: Now I have to ask you a very important question. Please think about it before you answer, and please answer honestly. Are you genuinely interested in representing the state of knowledge representation in Wikipedia? We don't do our own research here, we summarize the findings and insights by others, by the academic community working on the topic. This means for us, and for you, if working on any topic, whether the origin of Nsibidi or anything else: Finding out what the academics think on that topic and honestly reporting it, without distorting the consensus/mainstream view and without giving UNDUE weight to minority or fringe positions. Are you ready and willing to do that or do you think you know the truth already and it's not important what the academics think? Gawaon (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, I completely understand that Wikipedia is not the place to determine scientific truth and that it relies on scientists to back up any claims. On the issue at stake, I am requesting the claiming editor to provide back-up evidence for claiming that Nsibidi originates among Ejeagham people. That is a beautiful claim. To that I say may you provide the back-up evidences. Someone cite a 350-authors book, Page 299. Try to click on that referenced book, it is impossible to access it. I then request kindly of you to provide me the content of the page, author's name and title of whatever was written. If you believe that the citation is legit, should you not be making effort to provide the information to the readers/me?

Yet, that is not what you appear to be doing. You apparently care more about keeping the misinformation but less about finding out exactly what the evidence is.

If we allow any Dick & Harry to misinform readers by providing incorrect citations, is that what Wikipedia is set out to do? CHI-Research (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Igbo people. STOP removing references and adding unsourced and irrelevant content! Wikipedia is neither the place for POV editing nor for OR, if you think the current scientific consensus on the Nsibidi script is wrong, write a paper on it and get it published in some suitable reputed venue. Gawaon (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You wish me to be blocked so that you will have free way to continue to spread falsehood. You are the one who has been vandalizing Wikipedia as the threads show that you have been deleting my contributions. Desist from deleting my contribution. Post your falsehood and allow others to contribute. CHI-Research (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gawaon (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Let the discussion at Wikipedia Admin continues as that would not absolve you from editing my contributions. Post your contribution and do not edit others' contributions. CHI-Research (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Igbo people did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Isaidnoway (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If you continue to call the edits by the person you are having a content dispute with vandalism, I'll block you

See WP:VANDALISM and WP:NPA. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what you mean by "...continue to call the edits..."?

I ask because just reporting that my contribution was removed today by the person. CHI-Research (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't call edits vandalism then. Reverting you does not constitute vandalism. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate it. According to GAWAON, the reason for reverting me was that I did not provide sources even though the sources were already cited. I thought that citing the sources again were unnecessary. I have added the same sources to my submission.

If GAWAON reverts my submission again, having now added the sources, would that be considered reversion or vandalism? Thank you. CHI-Research (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No. See WP:NOTVAND. N.b.: This is a subsection of WP:VAND Doug linked to above. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Igbo people) for disruptive editing see also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Igbo_people&oldid=1230977149#Nsibidi_origins.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 19:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The way to get this block removed is to use the article talk page and show that you can work civilly with other editors and follow our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

There was no warnings at all?

To block me is to assume that the two infractions were deliberate. Why would I purposely mess up the page/quotes or engage in any infractions when clearly my posts show my intentions.

My intention has been to add a reliable source to the page. By yesterday, GAWAON removed my submission on the basis that it did not have sources. Today, I added the sources.

Then, today again, it was brought to my attention that my submission constitutes plagiarism, for messing up posts (the messing up was accidental and not deliberate), and original research (for highlighting the difference in sources' content).

I just want to add a vital source to the page. Already, I have posted my suggestions on resolving the matter.

Currently, this is how GAWAON's sentences read on the Igbo page:

"Used as a ceremonial script by secret societies, the Igbo have an indigenous ideographic set of symbols called Nsibidi, whose origin is now generally attributed to the neighboring Ejagham people, though in the 1900s J. K. Macgregor recorded a "native tradition" attributing it to the Uguakima or Uyanga section of the Igbo."

TWO SUGGESTIONs:

1.

WE remove GAWAON's sentence on Macgregor [from ...though...] because it was omitted in the page in the first place and I wanted to add it. I will add a phrase for the agreed submission to read as follows:

"Used as a ceremonial script by secret societies, the Igbo have an indigenous ideographic set of symbols called Nsibidi, whose origin is now generally attributed to the neighboring Ejagham people, even as an archeological study in 1909 attribute the origin of Nsibidi to subgroups of Igbo people."

2.

Given that I have been now told that users are not allowed to interpret the content of their sources, both parties should refrain from interpreting the content of their sources. I suggest GAWAON delete sentences added to the Reference section Citations 82-85 as they amount to interpretation. If the texts are left, can I add texts to sources that I would like to add?

Please let me know if the suggestions would resolve it. CHI-Research (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget to log in

...while Gawaon and I realize that 2603:7000:CD02:666C:C52F:1112:A1A5:3829 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is you, the signed-out edits make the record confusing, and the link may not be obvious to a reader who comes across the discussion years down the line. Abecedare (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)