Wikipedia talk:WikiDragon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

rename

Shouldn't this be named the exact opposite of Gnome, which is WikiGiant? I'd totally ascribe to that label, even the userboxen. VanTucky (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the Dragon is pretty "big" compared to the gnome...--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course, but it's not the automatic polar opposite of gnome, which is what the moniker is supposed to entail. Anyway, not a big deal, just a matter of personal preference. VanTucky (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Plus, if the name were changed, that awesome picture of that terrifying dragon (I've seen it in person; it really is terrifying) would have to go. 130.132.143.49 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Giants doesn't have a lot of magical powers, while Dragons certainly have. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Save the Dragons

In order to start a Save the Dragons campaign the Wikia Club (modelled after the Sierra Club) has launched a hunt to find the surviving WikiDragons. Is is possible for someone to list down the 15 WikiDragons currnetly roaming the WikiLand? Aditya Kabir 06:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Alteripse may be one of them.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 06:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
A User:Michael Hardy ; another one.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 07:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Although I may well meet the first criterion stated in the article for WikiDragonhood, it is also the case that I do nitpicking grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and formatting edits. It is possible to do both. Michael Hardy 02:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I changed it.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 05:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably user:r.e.b. should also be considered a WikiDragon. Michael Hardy 16:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am a WikiOgre and I am hunting out WikiDragons. I found one. User:MahaPanta. Jibajabba 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I a Dragon?

If I translate a lot (either from one edition of wikipedia to another or compose and translate from open sources) do I qualify myself as a Dragon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorkalloner (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want you can be! Be bold and add yourself. Phgao 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I become a dragon?

Hi everybody, I am pretty new to Wikipedia,and I was just wondering exactly how to become a WikiDragon. They sound pretty cool, so can anyone give me a little insight?

Sorry, I had to move your question cause it can't be at the top. Well, just kind of tweak Wikipedia. Fix grammar here and there and add little bits and pieces of knowledge if you know it. That's what I do. --Awesomeness

Userbox and Category

Why are we Dragons the only WikiTypes not to have our own userboxes and category? I would think a WikiDragon with the requisite skills to create these two things would already have done it! I would but for my expertise is not in those areas (by a long shot). Any takers? VigilancePrime 14:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

CAT: WikiDragon

It was deleted. One might think that people would have better things to do than fight to delete the Fauna categories, but that some but not all is a travesty of WikiEquality. Pathetic. Any thoughts on how to handle it? Users with the CAT on their userpage still will show up even without an actual category page, but no longer those who only use the template/userbox. Travesty. So, any other Dragons have some great ideas on what should be next? VigilancePrime (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: This morning there were 33 pages in the category. Now that it has been deleted and removed from the userbox, we only have five. Travesty. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

New Stuff Tonight

17 Feb

Where to start...
  • Noted that Category:Wikipedian WikiDragons still works... sort of.
  • Major overhaul of page. Demonstrated what being a WikiDragon is all about!
  • (Finally) Created Wikipedia:WikiDragon/Kudos page. Added first Kudos.
  • Archived this talk page...
  • ...archived it in a different, unique way. Perhaps it will catch on. No need to keep track of a bazillion pages of Wikipedia talk:WikiDragon/Archive11001001 et al.
  • Created template for the "Not Blocked" message I have. Some people liked it, so I made it personalizable... see it here.
  • Stayed up too late.
  • Got tired.
  • Had fun.
  • Hopefully, inspired more WikiDragons to do some WikiDragon-ing!
VigilancePrime (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

24 Feb

More new stuff...
  • I worked to use the dragon page as a sort of a template and incorporate some Dragon-like material here, tweaking it to suit this page. Also cleaned up and expanded the section headings.
  • Incorporated some text from another wiki that suited this page well. "WikiVirgins"... that's great...
  • There's some stuff here that I'm not sure if we want to keep on the page or no, and thus I left some hidden comments in the code.
  • Noted the creator of the WikiDragon page and the creator of the WikiDragon templates. We surely have at least a couple other "Notable WikiDragons" that we could add to the page, eh?
That's all for now. There's a NASCAR race on in a little bit...! • VigilancePrime • • • 20:12 (UTC) 24 Feb '08

Unnecessary, redundant, and contradictory content

Vigilance, its great that you are really inspired and filling the article out, but this section is completely unnecessary and detracts from the article.

  • It is already mentioned many times that the WikiDragon is supposed to be grandiose. Mentioning it again is not needed.
  • It is said in the intro that WikiDragons usually make bold changes...then why put internal linking as a behavior? It says in the intro that the other "creatures" do this kind of thing? This doesn't make a lot of sense.
  • The non-conformity is a given. Referencing you own creation is in bad form if you are attempting to boast your own qualities.
  • Unilaterally combining and creating pages...you have already mentioned this several times.
  • Reverting edits? Isn't this something that is usually done to the WikiDragon? It doesn't really match up with the rest of the article.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I see the grandiosity thing. Same with unilateralism. If here was another example I'd use it on the non-conformity. The internal linking and reverting what I'm (trying to) getting at is that WD's may go through an article and just link the hell out of it... overlinking even, and when in the right mood (the stick the head out of the cave but not really go flying around today) a WD can go on a revert spree, just undoing anything that doesn't seem perfect. I think these fal into WD behaviors (maybe less common), and I just haven't described them well. Maybe I'm just wrong. That's been known to happen before too. • VigilancePrime • • • 16:40 (UTC) 1 Mar '08
I typically don't revert edits, but I just reverted a couple of edits tonight on Monty Python and the Holy Grail due to a severe information loss. I don't think the edits were vandalism, but they were harmful to the article.Bob the Wikipedian, a WikiDragon (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiDragons exist!

No, Vigilance, you're not the last one! I checked the category page and there's another dragon out there somewhere, probably sleeping in his cave. Lately I've been out and about working on the extinct fish pages. I'm finding that there is a degree of inclarity as to the phylogenic categorization of the fish, but I hope to resolve that as I continue my research.Bob the Wikipedian, a WikiDragon (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments on this page

I'm unhappy about the fact that Wikipedia Admin people get to have a page such as this which is meant to be 'Humorous' but is in fact far from it. I did not even chuckle whilst reading the whole, overly long article. Now, how comes you Wikipedia Admin people or whatever you like to be known as, get to have this page but when I edit something, which I am in no doubt that quite a few people out there would find funny, you come along and revert it. Now I know you are going to say that Wikipedia is meant to give valid information to users, but what's wrong with adding a bit of light humor to the page so they can have a bit of a laugh whilst they read the article? Nothing. Thank you for reading, hopefully this doesn't get me banned as I am only voicing my views and if that is seen as a form of vandalism to then so be it.

Note: The above unsigned comment was voiced by User:Jwilson08 at 04:45 on April 10, 2008.

I only have one thing to say: "WTH???" 142.26.133.248 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Octapsids

Octapsids? Come on! Real reptiles are anapsids (one arch) or diapsids (two arches). Eight arches in the skull just sounds really, really, really phony. I know this is supposed to be made-up, but this doesn't even sound one bit realistic. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing it back, since they are most like diapsids. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Counting

I would like to know how the WikiDragons are counted, on the reference labelled [1], it leads to a page titled Pages that link to Wikipedia:WikiDragon. Are all user pages counted or is it investigated and only some of the more fierce editors chosen? --Hegan (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The process is fairly simple, although it takes some time. WikiDragons are tallied using the following steps:
  1. Perform a User search for pages linking to Wikipedia:WikiDragon
  2. Open each user in a separate tab. Sometimes users choose to display the information on a subpage, so these must be included.
  3. Run through each tab quickly, recording the name of every user with the WikiDragon topicon at the top of his/her page. Be sure to close any pages determined to be a WikiDragon.
  4. 2nd check. On the remaining tabs, look for a WikiDragon userbox, and record these names. Close the pages determined to be WikiDragons.
  5. 3rd check. Read the userpage carefully! Every one of these pages contains the link somewhere, so you may have to click a few "show" links to find it. Once you've found it, read the context in which it's used. "I am a WikiDragon, a WikiElf, and sometimes a WikiOtter." Add it. "I was never a WikiDragon." Don't add it...close that page. "I hope someday to be a WikiDragon." Not a WikiDragon, either. "I contributed significantly to/created the WikiDragon page." This means absolutely nothing. Not a WikiDragon.
  6. Once all pages are closed, run through the list, checking for duplicates.
  7. Check each WikiDragon's contributions page. If the WikiDragon has been unsighted (0 edits) for 10 years (an IUCN standard for classifying the status of endangered species), remove that name from the list. (Since Wikipedia was founded in the early 2000s, none should be eliminated yet.)
  8. Tally them up. I find copying the list into an Excel spreadsheet works best for counting them, since each row is numbered.
  9. Come up with a clever way to incorporate the new research into the article.
  10. If you understand how to come up with a classification similar to IUCN's classifications, then feel free to do the best you can to accurately place the WikiDragons into a class.

From a quick look at your userpage, the topicon and userbox are instant notifiers that you are a WikiDragon, so you would definitely be included in the census. Either of these two methods is a surefire way to be counted, but had you chosen to incorporate the information into the text instead or put the userbox in some hidden area without using the topicon, your page would only lengthen the process.

The topicon is definitely the preferred method for census purposes, although these can build up quickly for users who overuse them, so they are sometimes avoided.

IMPORTANT: If you do not include the topicon or userbox, be sure that you link your page to Wikipedia:WikiDragon in your text! Exceptions: These are the WikiDragons that are hiding in their lairs, safe from WikiKnights. Unfortunately, hiding WikiDragons cannot be counted, due to the difficulty in seeking them out.

Thanks for your interest in the census! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that cleared it up for me. Looking at what you have to do, it must take some time to do it all, maybe a bot could be created to lighten the load. Though that probally wont work if the information wasnt in the infobox, its worth a look in though.

--Hegan (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit to the process for surveying the population. I'm going to try and come up with a classification that meets the standards of IUCN. We'll see how that goes. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent increase in population

Sapientia bonum summum
Philcha (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir, your editorial of this morning claims that the recent increase in numbers is due to "technological advancements and governments taking an active role in conservation". Evolution was not invented, it's been going on for billions of years - trust humans to try to claim credit for it. As for "governments taking an active role in conservation", that claim is WP:OR of the worst type - unsupported, false and most likely phrased by a sesquipedalia of spin doctors who have transferred their dubious loyalties to the incoming administration.

*roar* I'm just trying to get funding from the government to establish a new zoo with dragons as the theme OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Somebody misread the section. Evolution doesn't increase the population, I'm not sure why you've connected it to that section. The increases in population are what the government has caused through programs to protect them, and the technological advances add a pun, because the technological advances refer to the tagging and identification system, which helps identify the numbers, meaning that when we count the population, it's a higher number. Remember the article is meant to be humorous. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I accept that the article is meant to be humorous. --Philcha (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)This user is a Wikidraco scholasticus.

What's with all the tags?

Why are all of the {{weasel-inline}} and {{fact}} tags on this page? It's not like it's a serious article that needs everything laid out like as if though it were an FAC. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this page has been WikiImped. I think it would be appropriate to remove these tags. The weasel tags are a bit excessive, but could be narrowed to a few. The fact tags can be destroyed, I bet. I'll leave them until someone else voices their opinion. Wouldn't be fair to call a consensus on only two opinions. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, someone's already done this. The only fact tag left is something which does need citation, as it refers to a more serious matter of administrators cracking down on WikiDragon editors. This might not even belong in the article, as it makes the admins look bad, but it at least needs citation.

good page

I think other wikifauna pages should be like this. It's so detailed and yet, so easy to understand. I think other pages should be like this one.


oh great...I'm a wiki-imp. Solar Flute (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You gotta start somewhere. --MahaPanta (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently made a WikiFauna page, WikiMercenary. Lots to do for it! The Clawed One (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

June 2009 census

I've taken another every-so-often-ly census. If anyone wants a copy of the census data from February 2009 or from June 2009, I have both and will share it with anyone interested.

Proud to say we've got 18 new specimens, and most of them are new users. That puts us at 112 specimens as of today. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, can you post it on my talk page?
Are these new users really dragons, or just saying they are because they like the sound of it? --MahaPanta (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The census is based on people who claim to be WikiDragons, and only on those people. It would be mind-bogglingly impossible to review and classify every single Wikipedian according to our own standards. Besides, isn't it possible that a WikiDragon could be lazy or evil, just as a manager can be a lazy manager or pointy-haired boss?
The WP:DRAGON, WP:GNOME, WP:FAIRY, WP:ELF, WP:WikiMercenary, and WP:WikiKnight (even though WikiDragons shudder at the term) are all positive roles which don't just happen overnight-- we become them. Some of WikiGnomes will never master the art of being helpful, some WikiKnights will never be successful at defending Wikipedia, and some WikiDragons may get stuck on a single article or never make a large, bold contribution. Then again, some company presidents will never serve their companies for the better, leading them into a spiraling bankruptcy, making poor decisions right and left, getting on every employee's bad side, and ruining the company's reputation.
One way to look at the WikiFauna persona is as a goal for the Wikipedian to aspire and become, and eventually a role that (s)he represents and is. The role of a WikiFauna (in my opinion) is a mission for any Wikipedian to assign himself (or herself). Some succeed, some aspire to succeed, and some don't succeed at all...but the point is that that's the hat they're trying to fill and how they want to be perceived.
One could also argue, however, that the WikiFauna are labels placed on other editors based on their edit history (as might be implied by WP:IMP, WP:OGRE, WP:SLOTH, and perhaps even WP:PRINCESS, but most especially, WP:TROLL.
So what we have then are two types of WikiFauna-- what we try to be, and what we come across as. The latter is more important to us, although there's some morality associated with the former. However, it's impossible to review every Wikipedian's edit history and classify him/her accordingly, so for the sake of the census, I think we ought to continue going by what they say they are.
You've inspired me to start a new discussion, though. See below in a few minutes after I finish typing it. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A way to get WikiDragons involved and known?

I was thinking we could start up a sort of WikiDragon meeting place where we discuss what we're working on...but maybe that's a bad idea. Then again, we could do a sort of deal similar to WP:HAU (which provides a list of highly active users in case someone needs help). Instead of highly active users, we'd be WikiDragons available to work on large projects. Wait...would that make us WikiOtters? Hmm...I need to roll the dough out some more before I get the cookie cutters out... Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I really like the meeting place (or meeting cave) idea. The WP:HAU idea may be better left for Otters, while us Dragons can get preoccupied with large tasks, if it is not something we are passionate about, it won't work. That's why I like the meeting cve idea better, we could then only work on things we are passionate about. --MahaPanta (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
A cave...great idea! So what would we do in this cave?
  • Share what we're working on.
  • Perhaps request help from other WikiDragons in times of need (such as an impossibly huge project)
  • Maintain a sort of registration list of WikiDragons. (This cannot be done using Category:WikiDragons, as that has been deleted on multiple occasions.) Perhaps we should require each other to check in every six months or so to remain on the list (six months sounds fair to me...we all take long breaks-- I do, anyway).
  • Anything else?
Also, what's a good name for it? "Community Cave", "The Lair", "Dragon Den", "WikiWeyr" we've got lots of possibilities. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
We could list our projects.
I'm partial to your "Dragon Den" idea because I'm a fan of the BBC show Dragon's Den.
--MahaPanta (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Inviting otters sounds like a grand idea. Why didn't I think of that myself? :)
If we invite otters, we can't call it an exclusive "dragon den"...Meeting Cave is probably best. Let's get started at User:MahaPanta/Sandbox/Meeting Cave. (I added a space, as it seems to be needing one.) Since it's in your userspace, feel free to start it. I'll check back either in a few hours or tomorrow and probably add my own touch to it here and there. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
User:MahaPanta/Sandbox/Meeting_Cave is now up.--MahaPanta (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Jakkinx-wtf?

Wtf? is this a ****ing prank or something?--Jakkinx (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what is the "prank"?--Twilight Helryx (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This is no prank, it's just Wikipedians having WP:FUN. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

New topicon

I've created a new topicon at Template:WikiDragon so that it doesn't use the deprecated Template:click and offers the option to play nicely with other topicons by using the parameter "|icon_nr=". Test it out, and if it merits a mention on this page, add it on. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

refimprove tag

The new ref improve tag is the newest laugh on this article. Seriously, what can be reasonable be expected for references? The source were the parody originated? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

2011 Census #1

The WikiDragon census for the first half of 2011 can be found at User:MahaPanta/Sandbox/Meeting Cave. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiPrincess and WikiDragon meeting place

I suggest there be a meeting place for WikiDragons and WikiPrincesses. I would like to be able to communicate with all active WikiDragons about a wide range of topics. :) Thepoodlechef (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What sort of topics? Also-- I find it interesting that people are now self-identifying as WikiPrincesses...when I created that page I hadn't meant for anyone to self-identify with it. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much what I want to do on Wikipedia is talk to other editors about conflicts and settle disputes. I want to share my opinion and be aware of current edit wars. I also want to be able to give my opinion to wiki dragons on their massive edits. I am slowly learning all of Wikipedia policies and want to be able to use policies to defend my position during conflicts. I guess my goal is to be like a wikijudge or wiki lawyer. I will be looking for other princesses during my royal tour of wikiville. Even if I am the only princess on Wikipedia, I do fit the description. I think there should be a place to discuss edit wars separate of where the people in the edit war are going to look. I also want to help give my opinion on major edits. I have opinions about almost everything and I'm willing to try to explain why I feel that way. I'm Also a very nice person and not one to pounce. I don't actively take part in edit wars because I find them selfish and immature. All I want to do is help people find a resolution :) Thepoodlechef (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Several dispute case boards exist; have a look at WP:ANI, WP:COIN, WP:AFD, WP:MFD, etc. I don't think it would be beneficial to duplicate these, but you may be interested in joining those who already serve at these boards. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and I know you'll be interested in WP:PR as well! Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 20:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Magical Powers

What's this about [1]? WMC any particular reason for this removal that would actually help this article? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else care to comment about the content before I move to restore it? It is intended to be a humorous allegory with subtle reference to wikipedia guidelines and policies, as if someone adopting WikiDragon magical powers would behave to improve the project. Since WMC long ago asked me not to post on his talk page, and he said he would accept all notices, I sent him a psychic message. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Restoration seems to be in order to me. This is the kind of humor that's good for organizations. htom (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Asian species

Asian species shall be separated in another article? Like Indonesia? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Behavior rewording

I have reworded the third sentence of the "Behavior" section, as it seemed to be a 1-for-1 copy of part of the listing for the "Diagnosis" section. Sawta (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Meeting den!

User:Lee Tru./sandbox/WikiDragon, WikiPlatypus Meating den is now open!-- Thus Spake Lee Tru. 20:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Documented subspecies: eight vs. nine

Hi! I've noticed an inconsistency error, and I'm not sure if it's intentional. The error is as follows:

In the Taxonomy section, there is a sentence which reads:

As of November 2013, eight subspecies of WikiDragon have been formally documented.

However, the section proceeds to list nine subspecies of WikiDragon which have been formally documented.

Please let me know whether this is a genuine mistake or an intentional inconsistency placed for comedic effect.

Thanks!

Noah Kastin (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for a new classification of WikiDragon

The new classification would be a "Wikihatchling", which is a relatively new editor with less than 100 edits, or something like that. Does anyone have objections to this? Or on elaboration on the idea? History person 2 (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Not going to object, just state that 100 edits is far to few in my opinion for anyone to know if an editor will be a dragon. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Verb

Can the word wikiDragon be used as a verb? like "I WikiDragoned this article [diffs]"? Cinadon36 12:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: - I suspect so, though it's an interesting question as to whether the "wiki" is needed. For example, while you do see "wikignomed", "gnomed" is much more common. I haven't seen "wikidragoned" in the wild, but that's not surprising, given the paucity of active dragons, and their comparative lack of loquacity. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply @Nosebagbear:. Given that most dragons are persecuted, I feel there are more out there than we imagine. Most dragons prefer hiding just like real-life dragons. :) Cinadon36 06:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiDragon/Archive_1&oldid=1186999281"