User talk:Simonm223

I'm also WP:AWARE of WP:GS/UYGHUR but that doesn't work for the DS/aware template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I've seen you around the noticeboards, and I just wanted to say that I see you as a role model (not to be parasocial or anything, I just believe you are an exemplary editor). 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 13:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Careful with labels

In this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Seibt&oldid=1283271271 you chaned Heartland Institute to far-right, though none of the sources you inserted call them that - FMSky (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

From [1] The Guardian and DeSmog understand that the organisation first established a foothold among rightwing MEPs in February 2023, when the far-right Austrian MEPs Harald Vilimsky and Roman Haider from the anti-migration Freedom party (FPÖ) attended Heartland’s International Conference on Climate Change in Orlando, Florida. and The German MEP Daniel Freund added: “Recently, Alice Weidel advocated for tearing down all wind turbines in Germany – even though they produce cheap electricity. The alliance between climate deniers and the far right is taking on cult-like characteristics.” Weidel is the co-leader of Germany’s far-right Alternative für Deutschland party.

From [2] U.S. Climate Denial Group Using Far-Right to Attack EU Green Policies
The pro-Trump Heartland Institute claims it spearheaded opposition to a flagship European nature law. and A leading U.S. climate science denial group has been attempting to scupper major EU climate reforms by forging alliances with far-right figures, and The Heartland Institute claims that it was assisted by Austrian Members of European Parliament (MEPs) Harald Vilimsky and Roman Haider, who represent the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) and have forged close ties with the institute in recent years. and It is really bad news to see the Heartland Institute moving to Europe,” said Kenneth Haar, a researcher and campaigner at the pro-transparency pressure group Corporate Europe Observatory. “At this point in time we should be scared that we will see a revival of grotesque climate denialism. The far-right – the natural environment of the Heartland Institute – is in a much stronger position nowadays than only a few years ago, and with that comes the risk of undermining any attempt to get rid of fossil fuels.” and Vilimsky was a keynote speaker alongside Farage at the Heartland Institute’s 40th anniversary fundraiser in Chicago, Illinois, during which he urged pro-Trump groups to forge closer ties to far-right Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. and Vilimsky’s FPÖ is a radical, anti-immigrant party that proposes halting all asylum into the country, and stripping naturalised Austrians of citizenship if they are found guilty of committing a crime. The FPÖ received the largest vote share in Austria during June’s EU elections as far-right and populist parties gained considerable ground. and In February 2020, the German investigative outlet Correctiv reported that Heartland had been working with the climate denial group EIKE, which has close ties to the far-right party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). Heartland also helped to launch the career of German influencer Naomi Seibt, a supporter of the AfD who has vocally denied climate science and gained her reputation attacking climate activist Greta Thunberg.

From [3] A US-based climate denial group, the Heartland Institute, has partnered with European far-right politicians to undermine environmental policies and promote anti-climate action agendas. and The Heartland Institute has collaborated with far-right European MEPs, helping them campaign against European Union environmental laws like the nature restoration law. and Far-right political figures across Europe have increasingly aligned themselves with groups that question the science of climate change, portraying green policies as elitist or economically harmful.

How many far-right politicians do we have to show them aligning with, allying themselves with, collaborating with or just straight "using" before we call this WP:DUCK the very WP:SKYBLUE thing it is? Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

See my resonse at the article's talk page --FMSky (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Len Blavatnik - Philanthropy section

Letting you know that I've left a comment at Talk:Len Blavatnik#Philanthropy sections - I would appreciate your input. C at Access (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll drill you really hard so that you stop it Mustanlahdenkatu (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

OK so this is now going from personal attacks to threats. I'm unconcerned and unimpressed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Mustanlahdenkatu If you make one more comment like that I will block you indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Simonm223. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thelema

So I just took a hatchet to Abrahadabra and I’m not sure I’ve seen as NPOV an article in quite as coherent a form (as opposed to more blatant ones) ever. I’ve cleaned up a few and I think this needs NPOVN on it since the entire Thelema navbox is essentially a roadmap to WP:NPOV issues. That said; I’m struggling to figure out Thelema on Wikipedia more broadly.

Journalistic estimates put the number of adherents between 5-25k, which makes it so insignificant a faith in size that I’m worried a huge number of places it gets mentioned are WP:UNDUE. For Divine Embodiment, for example, we have half the article dedicated to roughly a billion adherents and the rest at the upper bound 25k, and likewise it seems like the importance of Thelema was getting astroturfed on Wikipedia.

But I do know it’s incredibly influential, well beyond its adherents, so I’m curious what your take on this is as you know it better. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Also: Good God Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think part of the issue that you're facing is that Thelema is an NRM that attracts the sorts of people who like to write books. Simonm223 (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

But there's absolutely no reason for Abrahadabra to have its own article - I'm going to launch an AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Done. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Dhiraj Sinha

An IP is making extensive arguments on my talk page at User talk:Bobby Cohn § User:Mrityunjay243/sandbox about a subject (Google Scholar link: Dhiraj Sinha) whose two draft articles have been rejected. I don't think they are notable and the IP's arguments are not aided by the fact that they won't address the instruction I'm trying to give to help them. With that said, it's possible that English may not be their first language and I want to make sure I'm not simply beating them with the bureaucracy hammer.

Of the sources I click on, they are either their own promotional republications, interviews, or passing mentions. The ones that aren't ([4]) looked non-serious, less-than-reliable, alternative-science publications, reminding me of our discussion earlier—hence my request here.

Would you mind taking a quick look and letting me know if I'm on the right track and there isn't much to worry about here (other than the time-cost of repeating instructions and project namespace links to an IP) or is there something to try and flesh out between the promotional or non-helpful links for what might otherwise be a notable academic? I would appreciate it. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Well that link you shared with me is definitely not a WP:RS for a science-related topic.Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely wasn't seeing anything that I could really latch onto. And looking further into it, the citations that seems to attribute to an h-index of 7 (‽) all seemed to be circular. You'd think someone/thing tackling Einstein's theory of relativity would have some exceptional coverage. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You'd think! Simonm223 (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Contentious topics alert for pages relating to the Balkans or Eastern Europe

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TylerBurden (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

"Editors who are upset"

Simon, you are a long time editor and I'm sure you are aware that notices should be neutral. Suggesting some editors are motivated by being "upset" is both bad faith and not neutral. [5]. Please edit to address the neutrality. Springee (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

It was not bad faith. However in respect for neutrality I have struck "are upset" and replaced it with "have expressed dissatisfaction." Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

That's still not neutral as it suggests a non-policy based reason. When it comes to DUE this items from a single source this is often a matter of subjective discussion. Springee (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not revising my NPOV/N statement further. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Manhattan Institute

Excuse me but why is manhattan institute not a trustable soource? 2001:8F8:1165:154B:905F:36C3:C2F6:9247 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Because it's a private advocacy NGO - not a scholarly publisher. Please, in the future, do not put comments on unrelated threads on my user talk page though, thanks. I will move this to an appropriate section. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Moved now. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks I was just confused 2001:8F8:1165:154B:905F:36C3:C2F6:9247 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

My pleasure. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Cuba

Ermm excuse me you did not leave a edit summary you may want to check for schizophrenia SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I did, in fact, include an edit summary. It said MOS:OVERLINKING. Since you didn't understand that I clarified when I had to revert your MOS violating edit a second time. Please remember WP:NPA and please ensure your edits are compliant with our manual of style rather than insulting the people who have been tasked to clean up after your mistakes. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to apologize because for some reason the MOS:OVERLINKING Straight up was not appearing it only appeared after I restarted my computer SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

It's fine. I appreciate the apology and, ultimately, no harm was done. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Reverted photo for Curtis Yarvin

Happy to arrive at a consensus for the first sentence on the talk page but the portrait is of much better quality and more appropriate. I've restored the photo for now.

Peace! Davidmerfield (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I don't have an objection to the photo being honest. It's just the phone interface makes it hard to revert one edit without reverting the other. Apologies for that. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

re: Introduction to contentious topics

Hi! As far as I can remember, I have never edited an article on the Arab–Israeli conflict but a few days ago I did have a debate with another user about Abdulrahman Thaher's article which was opened by Osps7. Are the two articles related? Badak Jawa (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223 If I did edit the article, please provide a link to the edit history along with the time, date and year in which I edited the article Badak Jawa (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

This is about this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdulrahman_Thaher Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstood me because I gave my vote and opinion there because I felt the article was not worthy on the grounds of autobiography and spam making articles on other language Wikipedia. That's all Badak Jawa (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

But if it turns out that many users vote to maintain the article as worthy, I don't have a problem and don't care about it further. Doesn't every user have the right to vote and give an opinion? Badak Jawa (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the content of your !vote. This AfD is clearly within the Israel / Palestine CTOP. As such editors with fewer than 500 edits are not permitted to participate. All I've done is make sure you are formally aware of that restriction. I've also made a general mention of the AfD (not your participation in it specifically) at WP:AN and so I would suggest admin scrutiny will be high. These actions I've taken are the extent of the actions I intend to take. I've made you aware of the edit restrictions in the CTOP. I've made Admins aware that there's an AfD in the CTOP that is attracting the attention of new users. I've made my !vote in the AfD. There's nothing else for me to do. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to remind, ask, and just curious, in AfD for Abdulrakhman Zhaher I also voted, even changed it. Why wasn't I given a similar warning? I think the warning is necessary so that I am more careful about "controversial topics". Is it only those who voted "delete" who get this warning? If so, then isn't this biased? Or maybe only users under 500 edits get this? Thank you. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 21:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I only sent the aware notices to editors who were not extended confirmed. Technically they can be sent to any person after they first edit in a CTOP but I didn't have time to go through every editor to see if they were already aware so I only did it for those who are not permitted to participate in the CTOP. Simonm223 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Ahh ... I see, Thank you for the information. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 21:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Clarification request archived

Hi Simonm223. Your recent request for clarification has been archived with the following result:

We received a report of off-wiki canvassing that fell below the threshold of evidence that we consider to be actionable. Some editors were named as being possibly canvassed but there was no credible evidence that any specific editors were canvassed.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Simonm223 (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

On fascism opposing the reactionary conservatism of Joseph de Maistre

I think I've found the proper terms to use on the matter of the "anti-conservatism" assertions of fascism scholars like Roger Griffen and Stanley Payne. Payne clarifies that fascism was opposed to the continental European reactionary conservatism of Joseph de Maistre that sought to restore the pre-French Revolution state of affairs in European politics, mentioning a quote by Italian fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile directly opposing De Maistre's reactionary politics. Take a look at the post I have made here about this that includes the quote, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fascism#RFC:_Does_Fascism_Oppose_Capitalism? BlueberryA96. I believe the list of oppositions should include reactionary conservatism. (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean that mostly positions fascism as being anti-aristocratic or anti-monarchist. And, being a populism, it is quite anti-aristocratic, so that would be appropriate. My opinion of Griffin is that he's in over his head and really just started his career copying off Umberto Eco's homework only not as good. Payne I actually haven't read much. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about reporting what reliable sources assert on topics even if we may personally find the claims to be inaccurate or inadequate. I have to admit that like you I have disagreements with some scholars on their description of fascism but I am not a scholar who has expertise on the subject so I cannot challenge them. It is up to other scholars to challenge claims they deem to be inaccurate. BlueberryA96 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand that. I'm saying, from a weight perspective, we shouldn't lend too much credence to the views of Roger Griffin compared to the many, better, scholars who disagree with his perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

What in particular is it about Griffin's claim about fascism being anti-conservative do you disagree with? Also if there are other scholars that challenge Griffin's view, as you appear to mention with saying there are scholars that disagree with his perspective, that would make your argument to exclude conservatism in the"opposition to" list much stronger. BlueberryA96 (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that Griffin is using something of a special case to make a general argument. Like, yes, Fascism didn't want to return to the Aristocratic, pre-revolutionary, status quo of Europe but that's so out of step with a contemporary understanding of what conservatism is as to be misleading to readers. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

That is true, I agree with you. At least Payne puts into context whose conservatism Payne is referring to that fascism opposed. Maybe saying "De Maistrean conservatism" if included in the list would be specific and if they don't know what that means already they would need to look up who Joseph de Maistre was and what his politics were to understand that type of conservatism that it is said that fascism opposed. The problem is, as I think you would agree, that not enough reliable sources directly identify De Maistrean conservatism as something that fascism opposed. BlueberryA96 (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it would definitely need a wikilink to Joseph de Maistre for that to work. But, also, yeah I d think Payne's specificity is good and I should probably read them more but it remains very much a small trend within fascism scholarship to look at the futurist / forward-looking elements of fascism. Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It would be pretty easy to do that, you just need to refer to the politics section on the Joseph de Maistre article on Wikipedia like this: "De Maistrean conservatism". I agree that only saying "conservatism" or "reactionary conservatism" would lack the proper context, saying "De Maistrean conservatism" would be a lot better because it is specific. However unlike Payne not a lot of scholars on fascism specify De Maistrean conservatism as something that fascism opposes.BlueberryA96 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely no offence meant but I think we're making good progress here and I think we should roll this back into the article talk discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, we can tell users there to look at our discussion here to see what their views are on the matter. BlueberryA96 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

RE: Your WP:FOLLOWING, WP:HOUNDING and WP:VAND

 Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's harassment policy, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment.

After posting a suggested edit on a Wikipedia page with many editors, for some reason you singled me out and followed me, your target, from place to place on Wikipedia and deleted / reverted my entire content history.  This is known as WP:FOLLOWING, WP:HOUNDING and WP:VAND

The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason highlighted that you reverted not just one article, but many covering vastly different pages. Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.After routine revision of the first article due to vandalism, your response was to recruit a WP:MEATPUPPET and used the meat-puppet as a proxy to avoid being flagged for WP:EDITWAR . Again, further evidence of WP:HOUNDING

This disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Wikihounding generally receive a warning and consider this a warning. If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours.

This is Good Faith WP:DISPUTE. Please knock off your hounding as is bothering me. Thanks ScholarLoop (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm literally not doing any of the things you are accusing me of here. You really need to WP:AGF. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked ScholarLoop for 31 hours for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Clarification on reversion

Hey, looking over the edit history at Donald Trump and fascism, you mentioned having issues with the editing interface on your phone and the edit summary on your reversion seemed to be about edits from another user but it was hard to tell. I wasn't sure if you meant to restore a different version or not. (ie wondering if I can add my edits back or should I start a talk page discussion to get more input on the ones that have not been restored?)
Thanks! Superb Owl (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I will be honest, I was mixed on your edits because parts seemed good and others less so. If you are OK waiting until Tuesday I will go over the reversion in detail and give you more comprehensive feedback / discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks Superb Owl (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

OK @Superb Owl, so here's my thoughts. If you and I agree we can just keep this discussion here. If more discussion is required we should probably return to article talk. So with these edits I 100% support your change of "Critics" to the more specific "A number of prominent scholars, former officials and critics" however I did not like the removal of while others have found Trump to be more of an authoritarian populist. and its replacement with while others portray him as more of an authoritarian populist than a fascist. especially because of the cut of the footnote.

This removal I am fine with: :::According to the anti-fascist and socialist writer George Orwell, the term Fascist was oftentimes rendered meaningless in common parlance by its frequent use as an insult. but this deletion seemed less apropos: Corporatocracy and plutocracy are concepts often used to describe corporate elitism associated with Trump.

I thought the addition of the word "top" to this line Former top Trump officials was a little bit WP:WEASEL and added little. I had no strong opinion on the changes to header dates or the re-ordering of the further reading. It didn't seem necessary but also didn't seem problematic. I am entirely neutral on those. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good - do not have strong enough feelings on the others you disagree with to pursue talk page discussion and tried a different phrasing for Former top Trump officials. Thanks again for going through all that Superb Owl (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Stavrakopoulou-Jordan Peterson

I'm with you on the Stavrakopoulou-Jordan Peterson talk page. I'm trying to take the other editors in good faith, but I'm starting to struggle. It's a frustrating conversation. MattressSmith (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

So the point I raised earlier was that I didn't see Stavrakopoulou's statements as self-published because it was an interview and, as such the interviewer was creating a forum for her opinion here. However it's a tenuous argument which is why I eventually conceded that consensus was against this point.

There are editors who will try to defend their favorite pseudoacademics' reputations at all cost but the people opposed are not all in that camp by any means and their BLP concerns are rooted in policy even if we disagree with that specific interpretation. I was intending to drop this one personally but if you do want to pursue it further then I would suggest going to WP:BLP/N raising the question of whether her words constitute self-publishing in this context (IE:that of an interview). But be prepared this may be an argument to concede if that noticeboard returns the assessment it does constitute a self-published source. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there's only one I really think falls into that category, and even then, I'm trying really hard to adhere to Wikipedia standards.

Are you suggesting I specifically add a topic at the WP:BLP/N talk page?

I'm happy to concede the argument if we've gone through the process. I just profoundly disagree with their current stance. MattressSmith (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I would drop it. But if you want to pursue it farther that would be the appropriate next step. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

Simon, your comments about my motives here [6] are both incorrect and fail to AGF. We don't agree, that is fine. That doesn't mean you should poison the well with false claims about my intent/motives. Springee (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Where do you believe I spoke to your intent or motives. I called your protests risible. Because they are. I was not saying I believe you to personally be a far right extremist. I am, in fact, unwilling to speak to your motives here at all so if you believe I have please point me to what exactly I said so I can see if you are misinterpreting me or if a revision is required. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

We seem to agree on most points, the only issue is the matter of degree. Springee (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)