User talk:Talljenny

This is my discussion page where I will be posting my class exercises.

Wiki Exercise #2: To What Extent Are My Online And Offline Identities Aligned?
Being a young adult today has definitely changed a lot from what it meant being a young adult just 20 years ago. The technological advancements in the past two decades have changed how we view ourselves, how we view other people and how we view the world. And it has helped shape the current generation of young adults. We were raised in the 1990’s, an age of self-expression and optimism. The world was evolving, great strides were taken in science and technology, and people were happier than ever before. Our parents told us that we could become anything we wanted if we just worked hard enough. We were encouraged to express ourselves and to aim for the stars. Today our generation, the millenials, are seen as the ‘me’ generation. A generation of arrogant youth who only ever wanted to look at their own reflection or talk about their success. But the arrogance was taught. It was cultivated by the generation before us. We are a result of our DNA, our environment and our upbringing. We were brought up to perform, and social media became the markets answer to that. Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are platforms that allow us to perform everything to each other at all times. Social media platforms have transformed society into a big stage where only the best actors can have the spotlight. What we don’t see, is what’s going on behind the backdrop.

We paint a perfect picture of ourselves online by sharing only the highlights in our life, and we have become obsessed with internet points such as likes and up-votes. It is the new form of approval. Our photos are staged, filtered and edited to present the best ‘us’, because how else are we going to get enough likes? Instagram has become one of the biggest picture sharing platforms today, and it is making people miserable. An article from the guardian discusses how the site encourages its users to present an upbeat, attractive image in order to accumulate the most likes. But endlessly scrolling through pictures of beautiful people doing beautiful things has begun to take its toll on people’s mental health. The risk of developing an unhealthy body image is heightened when using Instagram. According to this article from the BBC, Instagram has been rated the worst social media platform when it comes to its impact on young people’s mental health. We’ve been told since we were young to not believe everything we read or see online. We know the pictures are edited. We know what we are presented with is a fake reality. And yet, we still compare ourselves to the pretty people in the pretty pictures. It’s a form of self-conscious destructive behaviour. We compare ourselves with edited photos and become frustrated when we realise that we can never look as good ourselves. It’s interesting that we are all aware of how social media impacts us, but still choose to use them daily.

Professor of social science and technology, Sherry Turkle, wrote in her book Alone Together that modern technology, specifically the internet, is causing people to alienate themselves from others, stopping them from developing genuine social relationships. Turkle states that social media has changed our view of ourselves and the world, and also made us become more socially disengaged in the process. We prefer the company of technology as it offers and illusion of companionship without the extra effort. There are no ‘real’ consequences online, so we feel more comfortable there. The online life gives us sense of togetherness, when in reality we are completely alone.

Talljenny (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #2 Comments
Roast me.

This is a kind of disturbing essay, that really makes you think. And I don’t mean that negatively at all. On the contrary, you set the context, talking about our generation and how we became who we are. It’s true: being constantly exposed to the perfect lives of so many people online can’t be healthy and definitely affects our personality. And a kind of competition arises, as everyone wants to be better than the others. Everyone wants to be famous in a certain way. Social media are not a diary where we write everything we do and think, they are more marketing platforms on which we show others our great achievements (what’s considered as ‘great’ differs from person to person). Raising awareness about the issues does often not help, I agree. And even though people would say that they are not influenced by what they see and the images they receive online, they are still perceived unconsciously. Does media (in general) not reflect society but shape and lead it? Doesn’t it provide us with ideal images we then all follow? I think that it is useful to start raising awareness about these issues at an early age – and I think that it is often already the case - but should social media companies maybe be also held more accountable and become more responsible about raising and tackling these issues? Or is it merely a phenomenon that arises from society and only the consumer’s fault? Stricter regulations might help us develop our own self-identity without being influenced by the media, but wouldn’t that infringe freedom of speech? Eric.berd (discuss • contribs) 12:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reading my essay, and for taking the time to reply so in-depth! You ask some very thought provoking questions too. I definitely think media reflects a certain part of society. I would argue specifically, the middle/upper class. It seems as though media is trying to sell us that whole "American Dream"-idea (even in the UK). They present us with a perfect image of something (be it fashion, a new car, a spectacular holiday etc) and they advertise it as if it's almost within our reach (if only we work hard enough), so naturally people start reaching. But the truth is that this perfect image is only accomplishable with the right resources. It's realistically only for the privileged, for those who got lucky in life. The rest of us have settle for mediocre, and of course it's making people frustrated. Nothing will ever be good enough. As a result, I think that companies should be held accountable. They create the algorithms, they choose what to advertise to people, they decide what is popular. Consumers do have a voice in all this, but it's currently a very small voice. It seems that some companies are taking the small voices into consideration, however, because changes are happening. There's currently a lingerie campaign run by Aerie which features models with disabilities and chronic illnesses. So, change is coming, but it is a slow uphill battle.
 * Talljenny (discuss • contribs) 01:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Eric.berd (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. These are really interesting points to think about. Even though I agree with the arguments you make, I don't think that it is possible to generalise that media reflects the middle/upper class in society. When taking the example of reality TV for example, it shows us a different part of society, people who are not as smart as the viewer, people who behave in a ridiculous way (the lowest class, you could argue). Relating to the example you give, what media does is enhancing stereotypes. Television is different than social media though because it depicts other people, compared to social media, where people present themselves. Nobody will deliberately show negative sides of themselves so that people can make fun.
 * I agree that companies might use their power to achieve benefits for them, by not listening enough to consumers. But are they not just responding to what the consumers want?
 * In a comment below, you talk about the 'sunk cost fallacy' of social media: it is difficult for people to give up their social media presence because they have invested so much time and effort in it. Although this might be true, I think that other reasons also explain why we do not give up social media. The platforms are designed to get us hooked; the goal of social media platforms is that we spend even more time on them and engage even more with content, by offering us entertainment. Societal pressure plays a role as well: we use the services because most other people use them. Finally, we want to be entertained and to spend our time on social media, it’s just part of who we are and how society works nowadays: the benefits seem to outweigh the risks.

I do think that companies respond to consumers to a degree, but that they are also very much driven by revenues - and that they, as a consequence, will push specific trends or opinions in order for them to profit. Absolutely agree with your last point here regarding social media, thanks for responding critically to my other comments too.
 * Hm, you're making some well-thought out arguments, and you've definitely made me rethink my statement. I see my mistake in generalising "the media", and I'm glad you pointed that out. However, I still believe that social media platforms, especially those who encourage people (more specifically influencers?) to show their way of life, like Instagram, Pinterest and Youtube, do represent the middle/upper class more than the working class. Your point regarding television and reality TV is absolutely valid and I see where you're coming from. And I do agree that media, in general this time, enhance stereotypes - which is very visible in the way gender, race, class etc. are presented in newspapers, television and on the big screen.
 * Talljenny (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I very much like the point you make about companies being driven by profits and that they shape trends that are or will become profitable. I find it fascinating though that trends become popular without the consumer asking for it in the first place. How do companies ensure that the trends they try to push to society will become popular and profitable? Do you have any ideas regarding that?
 * Thank you for your arguments and for further expanding this topic. I agree that social media show a picture of society that is very much representative of the middle/upper class. I think this is due to the fact that we measure our status in society according to what we possess. Which brands we buy and how much we can afford still plays a very big role in our capitalist society. As social media platforms exist to present ourselves, we will want to show a picture that fits into this societal expectation or framework. Therefore, we might get a depiction of the upper class, and the poorest in society will not be that present, as this 'capitalist', 'consumerist' representation will enhance the person's status and make them stand in a good light.
 * Eric.berd (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jenny, After reading through your (very informative) comment on my exercise, I thought I’d check out your essay in return: And I can safely say that I don’t regret doing so! This was an amazing read. I love how you managed to establish a very strong connection between our generation and why we use social media the way we use it. I definitely have to agree here: we live in an age where we are reinforced to be ‘the best’ - and that means beating all the competition. Oftentimes, such as in the case of social media, this leads to certain behaviours like editing our pictures and only showing the good sides of our lives. Simply because we have learned that only the best is good enough. Furthermore, I can relate to the paradox of knowing that something is edited but STILL comparing myself to it. As a psychology major, this is definitely something I want to look into further. Also, would you mind telling me where you got your pictures from? I am scared uploading something that has copyright on it! JuliaWearsAScarf (discuss • contribs) 23:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your feedback and your comment! It's an interesting thought, to be self-aware of something that "hurts" us and still not wanting to make a change to better our situation. I believe that to be very human. You could even argue that some people have become victims of the sunk cost fallacy when it comes to social media. We've invested so much time and energy into our social media presence and our online 'pages', so it becomes harder to just abandon it. I found the pictures on | Wikimedia Commons! I wasn't very concerned with copyright when I decided to use them, to be perfectly honest, but Greg did say that images from there should be mostly all good? Let's hope so..
 * Talljenny (discuss • contribs) 01:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

JuliaWearsAScarf (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Jenny, that is another very interesting thought. You seem to be very engaged in this topic and have a lot of great ideas. Thank you for showing me where you found your pictures! I agree, I think getting them from there should be fine.

Hello! I really enjoyed reading this piece. I felt your tone was very apparent throughout the essay, criticising an issue that is very relevant in the world today and to this discussion. This provided a refreshing approach and opinion to the negative impacts of social media use. I think especially reflecting upon the history of social media use is particularly useful within this discussion. The behaviour of why we use social media is definitely one argument that should be commented on and this piece was successful in doing so.

Hysterichattie (discuss • contribs) 21:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to read through my essay, and for your comment! Talljenny (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #3 Annotated Bibliography
'''Wearing, S., Buchmann, A., & Jobberns, C. (2011). Free Willy: The whale‐watching legacy. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(2), 127-140.'''

In this journal, the authors examine some of the contemporary issues in film tourism by discussing the growing industry of exploiting aquamarine life, specifically whales and dolphins, following the commercially successful Free Willy films (1993, 1995, 1997, 2010). The paper examines different studies and articles related to the “industrialisation of the ocean” and uses the existing research to support their claims. Furthermore, it indicates how the increased interest in aquatic animals has led to their commodification in ecotourism. The paper aims to inspire change in how we see and experience aquamarine life, and to transform our relationship to a more respectful one where wildlife has a right to a free and non-commodified life. The main limitation of the article is its structure. The paper tends to repeat statements, and the different topics are not structured in a very clearly set way. The paper will be useful for my involvement in the ongoing group project on Digital Culture and the Environment, as it discusses a specific way in which media has affected a part of our global environment, the ocean. I will base some of my work on this paper.

Talljenny (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Collaborative Essay Critical Evaluation – What ARE Wikis?
Wikibooks, a sister-project to the more renowned Wikipedia, is (simply put) a collection of open-content textbooks that offers a collaborative platform for anyone to contribute to and maintain. The site is open for anyone to join and with a simple username and password you can create an account and start your Wiki-journey. Wikibooks emphasizes visibility through logging every entry a user has made into their own ‘history section’. Users can also choose to put their signature down (which includes the date and a time stamp) by adding four tilde’s at the end of their edit. This allows for a transparent community where everyone can access each other’s profiles and contributions, which as a result prevents people from sabotaging or ‘trolling’. The visibility also ensures a higher level of reliable information put into the textbooks as anyone can check and double-check who, when and where the information came from. Furthermore, Wikibooks is easy to use and a wonderful platform to facilitate collaborative research on. Users can keep in touch by writing on each other’s discussion page or by using the ‘reply function’ to notify the other members when an edit has been made. From my own experience of working with others to write a Wikibooks entry, I found that the function to notify others (or myself being notified) when an edit had been done to be immensely useful. It allowed for continuous collaboration and effective group work as well as an easy oversight into what was going on at all times. However, conflict can occur when so many different people work on the same project, and I recognized that it is therefore very important to keep an open mind and to be patient when working on open collaborative platforms, such as Wikibooks.

According to Amy Jo Kim in her book Community Building on the Web (2000) a successful online community is created by maintaining nine timeless design strategies. Some of these strategies includes; promoting proper etiquette, giving the users a fulfilling purpose, and to provide them with flexible gathering places. Wikibooks offer all of these inclusive aspects on their site, and this is part of what makes the platform so great at fostering a thriving online community. According to Wikipedia, digital commons “are a form of commons involving the distribution and communal ownership of informational resources and technology.” Wikibooks provides its community (and anyone with access to an internet connection) with free and easy consumption of information, and can therefore be regarded as a prime example of a "digital commons".

Emancipation is, simply put, the process of giving people social or political freedom and rights. I would argue that wiki platforms partially offer a form of online emancipation; specifically, emancipation of authorship. The circulation and availability of information has made it possible for anyone to indulge in and expand on the textbooks on Wiki platforms. However, these platforms come with a set of rules and regulations that users need to abide by in order to benefit from the site, and total freedom is therefore not granted.

Talljenny (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4 Comments
Roast me (again).

Hi First of all I'm not gonna roast your work, however, I will offer my insights into it and my opinions on your 'what are wikis' essay that you have written. Onto the essay itself, I would like to commend you for your efforts in sourcing as well as the use of the Wikibooks logo as an image, one that you will also find in my own and many other's essays on the same topic. Your overall discussion of the emancipation of the rights of authorship is somewhat insightful as with Wikibook's as well as other Wikipedia sister projects, I have found that the authorship of work is both recognised via the contribs section of each member's account, not to mention the ability to view the history of any Wikibook or article available. Thereby through these means, one can attribute the authorship of any and all works on the site. I must commend your mentioning of the ability to communicate through Wikibooks (As with the introduction of this as an example) because this reinforces the notion of Wikibooks as a commune for mutual academic insight as well as moderation of the quality of work. You also mentioned about group work and the difficulty that can arise due to a large number of participants, I found this point to be somewhat true as you know during our collaborative essay that organisation and communication can easily break down, this is why I find that if I was working on a project or Wikibook out with the university assigned course work the rules of communication should take greater priority. Another aspect of Wikibooks and all the sister projects that perhaps merits discussion is the ability to use Wiki commons to source images for the benefit of Wiki's, as with the inclusion of a copyright free image archive comes the freedom to express and display ideas somewhat easier, without relying on copyrighted materials for visuals. You also happened to discuss the benefits of the Wikibooks' signature system using the four tildes, I personally find this beneficial as it offers up a means of publically displaying who can be attributed to the certain works, however, I find that what could perhaps be more beneficial to the site would be a listed Contribution section other than the personal one, but rather a section at the bottom of each Wikibook, article et cetera. Another means of perhaps looking into the what are Wikis exercise would be to perhaps analyse the pillars of the Wikipedia community as well as an in-depth analysis of the Wikipedia tea room as a means of community support, but also to look at the quality and frequency of Questions and answers given within these Wiki ran support systems that rely on volunteers and other users to troubleshoot members'issues. Aside from the previous things I've highlighted I found your essay incredibly insightful and would enjoy seeing your feedback on my own work within the same Wikibook exercise. Apologies for the massive long text feel free to criticise my essay. Atari Darren (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jenny, I want to start out by saying that I had a very hard time writing this essay. Funnily enough, I got hung up at the question because I couldn't see the obvious. When I was looking into what wikis really are, I mostly found what they are not — which while helpful, didn’t get me very far. That’s why I appreciate how you start out your essay: Giving an overview of all the things every single one of us is familiar with after this module. From having to join the website to post something, to being assigned a username that other people can find you with, all the way to how every contribution is signed by the user. While this is a very simplistic way of defining what wikibooks is, I really appreciated that you did it that way, because it helped me to re-discover some of the defining functions that make the website unique and that, even though I was familiar with them, I failed to recognize because they had become so normal to me after using this website for the past couple of months. I also think it is important that you mention the use that some of these functions have, such as having to select a unique user name when you first register an account. You mention that this is to prevent trolling and while I think that that is definitely true, I have been wondering if the negatives of having to create an account before being allowed to contribute or comment don't outweigh the positives. What I mean by that is, that there are websites that allow people to comment without forcing them to identify themselves which leads to more open discussions and more discussions in general. Because it would be possible to just e.g. IP-ban trolls, trolling shouldn't really be an issue. I was thinking that increasing interaction would be highly benifical for websites such as wikibooks and might even have led myself to engage with wikibooks way earlier that I have. However, I might be missing some positives that accounts have and I am happy to be corrected. Moreover, I like how you brought up your own experiences working on wikibooks, which I could relate to a lot. However, I also think that we experienced so much conflict due to being taught (at school and uni) how important it is that our work is our own and that we respect other peoples work. Being able to leave this mindset behind and look at the work we did not as ours or even the groups, but simply as a contribution to wikibooks that can be altered by anyone at all times, might be one of the most valuable lessons we learned in this module. All in all, I had a great time reading your essay and I think that you did a great job highlighting some of the main aspects that make a wiki what it is, while also providing critical evaluation of them.

JuliaWearsAScarf (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Talljenny I found your piece very interesting and you definitely offer a more optimistic take on Wikibooks than I did. I agree that there are many great features in Wikibooks like the ability to see each other’s edit histories and so on. I do disagree slightly in that some of the etiquette on Wikibooks does seem somewhat flawed. For instance, not signing posts on the actual book with tildes similar to in discussion pages can make it difficult to find who is contributing what and maneuvering through the histories section of the entire book or particular authors can be a difficult task to find the authors of each section. Similarly, I felt a great degree of difficulty when it came to the discussion pages and to the editing of each other’s work. I’m sure I’m not alone in feeling there was a sort of anxiety around making changes to others work and the formality of the discussion pages made it difficult to approach each other to discuss the changing of each other’s text.

In regards to how Wikibooks creates a sense of community, I found in my own research that in fact many Wikibook author’s work on their projects alone or in very small groups. I would agree that it can be a fantastic resource for collaboration, but I found that the collaborations on Wikimedia were usually in the form of aiding others in how to format and use wikibooks rather than collaborating on the books themselves. I think that there are of course advantages to collaboration however leaving a wikibook open to be edited by a large amount of people seems like it would lead many difficulties. Authors need a sense of control in order to create the text they wish to publish and leaving everything open to be edited leads to conflict over the quality and content of the finished article.

I would also argue that the emancipation of authorship can be quite problematic. In working in large groups in authoring a Wikibook we’re forced to sacrifice any unique writing style that anyone may have, and it leads to difficulties in providing a coherent overall text when there is such a vast number of authors. If everyone is forced to write in a strict way similar to articles on Wikipedia than author’s are bound to lose some of the quality that they could achieve publishing their work elsewhere.

I realise that I sound quite negative in my response, so I will say that I agree with the overall sentiment of your essay, Wikibooks is a great resource. Providing free information and education in an open space is of course admirable and could prove invaluable to those that can’t access education or find a space to publish their work through more formal channels. However, I feel there are a number of issues with the wiki format and the etiquette that goes along with it. Communal ownership and the emancipation of ownership are double-edged swords that come with a number of issues. BowieAndQueen (discuss • contribs) 22:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: ENGAGEMENT ON DISCUSSION PAGES & CONTRIBS
Grade descriptors for Engagement: Engagement on discussion pages, and contribs of this standard attain the following grade descriptor. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this descriptor will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Poor. Among other things, poor contributions may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard.

As instructed in the labs, and outlined in the assessment brief documentation, students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline:
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable”
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant”
 * Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial”
 * Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value

Overall:
 * the engagement in evidence here is very inconsistent, mainly concentrated in the final day or two of the project period. This meant that you weren’t left in a position to build significant or substantial contributions over time. There is some evidence that you have made some effort to engage, but it is really a case of too little, too late to really get much out of the project.

Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages
 * Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration
 * Satisfactory
 * Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay
 * Satisfactory
 * Evidence of peer-review of others’ work
 * Satisfactory

Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages
 * Clear delegation of tasks
 * Poor
 * Clearly labelled sections and subsections
 * Satisfactory
 * Contributions are all signed
 * Satisfactory

Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.
 * Satisfactory

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly correspond to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall:


 * Excellent. Among other things, these entries will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. They will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. They will address the assignment tasks in a thoughtful way. They will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. They will be informed by serious reading and reflection, are likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.


 * You have written a set of thought-provoking, well researched and well written portfolio entries. This work is at the lower end of this (admittedly high) grade band, so there’s perhaps a little room for improvement here. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. For example, I think drawing more from the peer-reviewed research, rather than relying somewhat on news articles, would have bolstered thing s alittle. This is being picky though, as there are quite a few materials being used to build evidence.


 * Making a little more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone some way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would make a difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are especially good. Even though the peer-review element for Ex4 is a little on the slight side, what is particularly impressive here is that you have gone out of your way to respoind to comments made on your work, and engaged others in what amounts to quite meaningful discussion of the elements under view. I like that you have framed some of your responses as questions to solicit discussion (this is, arguably, what discussion pages are all about!) You have also engaged in discussion in an open and critical way (that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion - arguably the civic element of wiki that you ought to be thinking about, which you clearly are). Very good indeed.

General:
 * Reading and research: evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material – all good.


 * Argument and analysis: well-articulated and well-supported argument; evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position); evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections); evidence of independent critical ability – all v. good.


 * Presentation: good use of wiki markup and organisational skills – a little room to improve here.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)